Analog Photography Makes a Comeback

[foc]

Bickering and "I am right you are wrong" has been going on for a very long time, long before digital times.
There was always one point of view VS another.
Reflective vs incident light reading.
35mm vs 120
Kodak pro film vs Fuji vs Agfa
Autofocus vs manual
Formal vs candid wedding/studio images
Reflector vs fill in flash
the list goes on.

In the mid 1990s, a wedding photographer colleague had just purchased a Canon Eos1. While chatting about the camera, (as I had one also) he told me he only shot on manual exposure and proceeded to tell me how and why I should do the same. I tried to tell him that the meter reading in manual was the same as in AV/TV/Auto but no, his way was best. So I let him at it.

 

[faberryman]

Wow. Of all the threads...I never would have guessed that this one would degenerate into people bickering about the finer points of digital imaging.
Can you guys take your discussion of digital stuff over to somewhere in the digital area...Please?

I thought my comments about digital imaging in this thread were disparaging enough that they would have been welcome by all the film enthusiasts. Not that that is how I really feel, because I have some digital prints that I think are pretty spectacular, but I would never say that on an analog thread. Speaking of disparaging remarks about digital, I was over at this big artisan crafts fair yesterday and there were five or six tents with photographers selling their wares. You'll be happy to know that HDR is still a thing on the crafts fair circuit, and, as long as HDR is still a thing among digital photographers, film enthusiasts have a fighting chance. But I won't mention anything about digital again.

 

[faberryman]

Can I summarize:

- Everyone says they are analog photographers but mostly shoot on digital
- "I only shoot for myself" -> yeah right, but you don't mind good flattering feedback? (sorry not ref. to you test_realm)
- only publishing method that matters is Instagram
- only RAW makes good photographs
- only way to view photographs is looking at optical print in sun light wearing sustainably manufactured clothing
- is it snowing?
- I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG

Anything to add?

Well, I would just say that if posting an image on Instagram is now considered publishing, it's all over but the crying. But, since you are from Finland, it is probably just a language issue, and we are still okay.

 

[Agulliver]

Putting an image on the internet, be it the web, Instagram or any other site/app accessed via the internet.....has been "publishing" since at least the late 1980s.
Take that from a native English speaker and language pedant.

 

[faberryman]

Putting an image on the internet, be it the web, Instagram or any other site/app accessed via the internet.....has been "publishing" since at least the late 1980s.

That's fabulous news. I am a published photographer!

 

[Don_ih]

Publish means to make public. It doesn't mean you make money from it - or that anyone even knows who you are - or that anyone will look at it....

 

[faberryman]

Publish means to make public. It doesn't mean you make money from it - or that anyone even knows who you are - or that anyone will look at it....

That is certainly the dictionary definition. Seems like gilding the lily to say you are a published photographer just because you posted a photo of your lunch on Instagram. I am obviously showing my age. I wouldn't have the chutzpah to put that on my resume.

 

[kuparikettu]

This thread really shows how Photrio forums are reimagining themselves now that the Film Apocalypse has been averted. Young people are shooting film and Kodak has problems keeping up with the demand. What to discuss, then? Why of course lament how the young people are using film in an incorrect way Those scoundrels, shooting film to scan it and share on Instagram! "Why, in my youth we made real prints in darkroom and took real photos, none of that funny business of photographing food (unless it was on 4x5" and in a studio!)"...

 

[Don_ih]

That is certainly the dictionary definition. Seems like gilding the lily to say you are a published photographer just because you posted a photo of your lunch on Instagram. I am obviously showing my age. I wouldn't have the chutzpah to put that on my resume.

Yeah - I doubt anyone is claiming online posting is publishing, except in those instances where it actually is. And what would make it that way? Viewers. If a million people see the image you post on Instagram, I'd say that's greater reach than publishing it in the local paper. What makes someone a photographer now is taking photos - not being good at it. There's no necessary competence implied by the term, anymore. No one would say a guy who pulls out your teeth with a crowbar is a dentist.

 

[radiant]

I love how there is argument in usage of word now - even if everyone knows what the original post was meaning

All is well.

 

[Pieter12]

To some, publishing means getting paid to have a photo/poem/essay, etc. put in a public medium and distributed. Self-publishing--as in vanity books or posting on the internet is a different animal altogether. Unless one self-publishes with the intent to distribute or sell the material because a traditional publisher will not undertake the project (not up to their standards, not commercially viable) it is about feeding one's ego. And most of those projects are total garbage, only valued by the originator and maybe their family and close friends.

 

[BrianShaw]

Unless one self-publishes with the intent to distribute or sell the material because a traditional publisher will not undertake the project (not up to their standards, not commercially viable) it is about feeding one's ego. And most of those projects are total garbage, only valued by the originator and maybe their family and close friends.

Since you come close to perfectly describing some of my latest efforts, please allow me to disagree with one point. It's not always about ego and while they may be garbage to you they may not be garbage to all. It's sometimes about preserving information for future that would get lost otherwise. I've been self-publishing genealogical information and photos that would be of interest to few except family and relatives. All have an underlaying sociological story in addition to the family history so there is the possibility that someone else, today or in the future, may have interest. No formal publishing company will support because there is almost no chance for profit, so self-publishing to share with family and ensure that the information doesn't die with me is a good idea.

Maybe if it's just publishing pictures of flowers, old buildings, and trees... although even some of those from the past are now of interest to historians, both formal and amateur, who are using them as context for research even though at one time the photos had little context.

 

[markjwyatt]

Since you come close to perfectly describing some of my latest efforts, please allow me to disagree with one point. It's not always about ego and while they may be garbage to you they may not be garbage to all. It's sometimes about preserving information for future that would get lost otherwise. I've been self-publishing genealogical information and photos that would be of interest to few except family and relatives. All have an underlaying sociological story in addition to the family history so there is the possibility that someone else, today or in the future, may have interest. No formal publishing company will support because there is almost no chance for profit, so self-publishing to share with family and ensure that the information doesn't die with me is a good idea.

Maybe if it's just publishing pictures of flowers, old buildings, and trees... although even some of those from the past are now of interest to historians, both formal and amateur, who are using them as context for research even though at one time the photos had little context.

Agreed. I shot this old house on the cliffs over the Pacific in Encinitas, California back in the mid-1980s. It is no longer there. Is it monetarily valuable? Probably not, but maybe depends on who owned it in its heyday, what occurred there, etc. Is it of interest? Maybe to someone someday researching something about an old cliff house in Encinitas, California, or a historical group putting together the history of Encinitas. Try and find another photo of that house. I am sure they are out there, but good luck finding one.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/albums/72157718349908056

I did the same a few years later with this historical old citrus packing house in Escondido. There are other photos out there, but these are some pretty good ones: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/albums/72157718339954738

Here is what the I-15 looked like before being the super freeway it is today (going through Esocindido, late 1970s): https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/albums/72157718329162357

Finally, here is an old chemical plant in Escondido that is now and has been a super fund site for probably 40 years: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=chatham
Now it looks like an open field with a couple of wells on it.

So, commercially viable, maybe not. Valuable, maybe to someone.

 

[BrianShaw]

What I find funny about this kind of photography (and, yes, I LOL at both myself and others) is how judgmental some folks can be. I've been living for the past 50+ years in a neighborhood that was created as a utopian community in the 1920's and is now in the final stages of being totally re-developed. TODAY there is just one of the original structures remaining. I photographed a few of these before they were bulldozed. While photographing the final original structure, which is next door to my parent's house, the owner (never a resident; a developer) and I were discussing its history. This is a piece of junk building, really, and the owner basically told me I was a nut for even caring. Maybe so. He had no interest in the history as his only history is to build a few homes, make his money, and leave. That's okay. In another part of the neighborhood I was photographing what seems like random trees. I got many odd looks and one person asked why I was engaging in such odd behavior. When I explained the significance of the trees (former property boundaries) and a few old brick wall remnants in context of the history of this neighborhood, I had at least one interested ear. I'm hoping that my self-published story will be of interest to somebody; perhaps the local historical society. In the 1970's there was a brochure that was distributed by the historical society to the residents on the interesting history of this neighborhood. Even the historical society doesn't seem to have a copy. My copy is buried somewhere in the files and it seems better to supplement that story with the story of the old neighborhood's ultimate demise. Since I have an ego... I'll be sure to put my name on the cover.

P. S. I've been shooting in all formats, and both film and digital. Folks have looked at me odd (and harrassed me and called the cops) when I bring out anything more than a cell phone.

 

[Pieter12]

I have no argument with documenting things, be it neighborhoods, buildings, people. And gathered together and edited properly, such documentary photos can make invaluable collections and books. Many worthy of publishing. But some take to self-publishing as a sort of photo album, really. Nice, compact presentation, but the reproduction is rarely as good as an original.

 

[BrianShaw]

Reproduction quality is always an issue - self-published or professionally published. Quality of the image isn't just about reproduction quality, though. It's sometimes about the power of the image content, even when the original quality is low.

My gripe with publication of photos is when they are random, tell no story, or have no theme...

 

[faberryman]

My gripe with publication of photos is when they are random, tell no story, or have no theme...

That's why you need an artist statement, to bring order out of chaos, preferably referring to a psychological exploration, with a quote from Lao Tzu at the end. I don't know about you, but when I go to a photographic exhibit, I make it a point not to read the artist statement before looking at the photographs. Then, after I have gone through the photographs a couple of times, and thought about them and what they might mean, I go back and read the artist statement to see if I guessed correctly. It has never happened that I guessed correctly. That probably explains why I prefer going to see exhibits of dead photographers. They rarely have artist statements so you can just enjoy looking at the photographs for what they are, say a pile of rocks, or a pepper, or a guy jumping over a water puddle, without being made to feel like an imbecile.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you don't print the images, it pretty much doesn't matter.

I rarely print my vacation shots which I shoot on a digital 1" sensor camera. I mostly make slide shows for presenting on a 75" 4K TV . Although I shoot RAW + JPEG, I rarely use the raw.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I am sort of the school that if you don’t print it, it really isn’t a photograph.

What about film slide show projection?

 

[MattKing]

Just like projection of movies or slides, it is a question of presentation.
Your big screen TV is a decent form of presentation.

 

[Pieter12]

Most people would rather be hung by their thumbs than watch a slide show. They only watch to be polite.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not yet, but you have made a good start. I am obviously overstating my position, but I think the tangible embodiment of the work is critical. It is probably a position falling further and further out of favor.

How many photos can I hang on the walls? Ask my wife? In any case, times have changed. We didn't have monitors, internet, smart TVs and cell phones before. Today, thousands, maybe millions can see your photos because they're not printed. I think you have some nice shots on your web which I never would have ever seen if they were printed only.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

To some, publishing means getting paid to have a photo/poem/essay, etc. put in a public medium and distributed. Self-publishing--as in vanity books or posting on the internet is a different animal altogether. Unless one self-publishes with the intent to distribute or sell the material because a traditional publisher will not undertake the project (not up to their standards, not commercially viable) it is about feeding one's ego. And most of those projects are total garbage, only valued by the originator and maybe their family and close friends.

Self-publishing one or a few copies for relatives is fine. I'm thinking of doing it. It's a simple way of printing a bunch of pictures that you can leave on your coffee table and not fight with your wife about hanging framed photos throughout the house. Giving a copy to a relative as a gift is also nice. As far as ego, all photographers are egotists to a certain degree. Everyone likes to get an attaboy for their photos. Denying it is unbelievable.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most people would rather be hung by their thumbs than watch a slide show. They only watch to be polite.

I keep my collection of thumbs in the pantry.

 

[BrianShaw]

Most people would rather be hung by their thumbs than watch a slide show. They only watch to be polite.

I feel the same about looking at many peoples prints too.

Both prints and slide shows need a theme, a message, and careful curation.