The Dangin Effect

Illuminating? If you live under a rock maybe. Pascal is good, but really good at the hype and getting people to really think he’s the shit. Most ad agencies dislike working with him. He takes little direction, if any. It’s his way or the highway. He works with top name photographers no doubt. He has sold them. They trust him to make things look as good as they can. But, it doesn’t mean that any number of talented shops and/or retouchers won’t do the same thing. Most important, the photographers, mostly editorial, don’t want to deal with it and/or have the time. Pascal is more than excellent at “image” less at imaging. The New Yorker piece was just as fluffy as any piece of late on Pascal or Box. I was disappointed. In regards to retouching in the fine art world – bottom line, like any art, the artist wants it to look as good as it can. Everything is and always has been manipulated, now it’s easier and you can do more is all.

I totally agree. As someone in the retouching industry, most AD’s hate working with Box, and many are looking to jump ship. If I had famous photographer friends, they’d be keeping me busy too.

“Are some fine art images that we consider “straight” actually really manipulated? What about my favorite diCorcia Head? How can those of us making c-prints in the darkroom compete?” Yes. There is no “straight”. Plenty of people do not manipulate their photos outside of developing and printing. There is no competition. That’s like saying “I use watercolor as my medium in painting. How can I compete with Oils? Silly.

not sure i agree that watercolor v. oil is akin to c-print v. highly manipulated digital c.

Are you saying that the c-print is not manipulated? Assuming yes, it’s untrue. Is the digital c capable of perhaps more manipulation? Sure, due only to the technology. Doesn’t make one better than the other. Photographers shooting film have film choice, processing methods (chemistry, time, temp, etc), paper choices (fibre, glossy, RC, etc) and printing (color, dodge, burn, masking). It’s all the same. Photography, since its inception has been manipulated. There is no “true” It’s not a record of reality or not. It is photography. A painting is a painting, no matter what the media used to execute it. Different medias or tools to achieve the same end product do not compete.

Of course, one can’t compete holding on to that “straight vs. manipulated” attitude. It’s naive about the history and nature of photography in general, much less the reality of contemporary photography. For example, in the old days, a scientist chemically engineered contrast curves into film emulsion. Today, scientists create chips which capture a wider gamut of color than film ever did. For those willfully naive photographers who refuse to see this, to understand how to use the more complex tool, there is no competing. Knowledge is power. These days, the guy standing behind the old fashioned C-print machine is the residue of some dead scientist. He’s got little to do with the phenomena of photography and a lot to do with aesthetic decisions which were largely dictated in the R&D lab years ago. I agree with Ant that the New Yorker article was fluff. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn it was born of some masterful, closed doors PR effort. It wasn’t up to New Yorker standards. I disagree with Ant that Pascal is better at hype than photography. Say what you will about the guy–that he’s an asshole, that he’s crass, that clients don’t like him–his work is head and shoulders above the others. History is full of unsung geniuses of post production–everyone knows Helmut Newton but few can name the handful of master printers who realized his work. Pascal happens to be on that other side of the lens as the power is shifting. If anything, he deserves more hype, regardless of his paradoxical character.