complicated photography

as we are all people who use cameras, photographers, how complicated do you make things?

in its most raw sense, photography is a very simple process. it is focusing and exposing a negative
depending on the light and what a general meter reading is. it is developing the film to make negatives
and it is exposing the negative onto paper and again developing it to make a positive print.

but it can be more than that. one can test the film, which is a stable media and doesn't really change much
it is just the light tha changes ) to learn in what light conditions how to expose the film to best catch the light.
and then test the developer through a variety of techniques and methodologies to find out which development
method works best with which film depending on the light and scene / subject, and then
how to best use available papers and develoeprs with these negatives.

it could just be point, shoot, develop, print. most people for decades did just that and they delivered
the film to a minilab, or mail order lab &c and got pretty good photographs, or pictures of memories
( kodak moments as they were called )

and as one goes up in format things become more dire and rigid because the effort and cost of materials increases.

it is obvious when we take pictures we get used to our cameras and know how they work, and if the meter inside exposes a certain way, and if we send out who prints the way we like it, or if we print ourselves what works best

but how complicated do you make it ?

i am always in awe at how complicated a simple process can become and in awe at some of the results
that come out of what could be just a simple point+shoot process.

i try my best to keep things simple but sometimes things are never as simple as you would like them to be
so you have to make-do...

what about you ?

jnanian said:

...and as one goes up in format things become more dire and rigid because the effort and cost of materials increases.

Click to expand...

There is no reason that things become more "dire" and "rigid" as you go up in format because of cost. Your work necessarily becomes more deliberate, which means that you shoot less. For black and white, a roll of film cost $5.00. Four sheets of 4x5 film costs the same. Given that you will necessarily take fewer photographs, your film cost will likely remain about the same. Your cost for film chemistry will likely remain the same for the same reason. Paper and paper chemistry costs the same regardless of the size of the negative. If you make paper negatives, you can leave film out of the equation altogether. I'm not sure what "dire" means in this context. I also don't understand the preoccupation with keeping things as simple as possible. That is just one approach. The simplicity or complexity of the process depends on what you seek to accomplish.

I do not make it complicated. I keep it all simple. Basic practices for light reading. No pushing, no pulling, no stretching. Box speed. Follow the instructions on manuals. Concentrate on the exposure and composition.

Sirius Glass said:

I do not make it complicated. I keep it all simple. Basic practices for light reading. No pushing, no pulling, no stretching. Box speed. Follow the instructions on manuals. Concentrate on the exposure and composition.

Click to expand...

I think you probably are correct in what you say, Sirius Glass, but where is the FUN in the above. You must be missing something because so many people in this group seem to do everything they can to complicate things....Regards!

The most simple things are still terribly complicated...we only fool ourselves that they are not. Life is simpler that way.

Edited to add:

As a landscape photographer, I take-in and experience the infinitely complicated reality that we exist in, find and record a fine slice of the light during a relatively short slice of time, and render it into an image that is a greatly simplified representation of reality in a way that is meaningful to me and that will hopefully transmit the wonderful complexity of what I saw and experienced to the viewer.

Is there a simple way to do this?

What about all the complicated ways of drawing w/pen & ink?

I think that the process of proper exposure and the trade-offs it brings, along with the condition and non-linearity of emulsions themselves AND the development characteristics make shooting and developing film into finished products very difficult.

I mean there are how many developing chemicals, and the time variables with that alone are mind boggling. It's all "baked in" to your product which had to be exposed to the process in the first place, unlike photoshop there's no undo. Go back to ANtartica/the Moon if you want a "redo".

It is an excellent question !

Since 1978 I live of selling prints. It is a beautiful life, tough and stimulating at the same time. Full of meetings with people who love images, good prints, darkroom stuff. I kept doing the same simple thing: 135mm SLR with only a 50/2 lens at first, which a little later became a 40/2 lens. Two bodies, two lenses - one set-up with 400, the other with 125, my night and my day cameras. This never changed.

I began using Tri-X 400 and FP4 125, developed in Rodinal. The Tri-X became Tmax 400 and nothing ever changed. I got Focomats, because everyone else around me had them, nothing ever changed. I printed on Record Rapid fiber and when that stopped on Ilford Warmtone fiber. Nothing ever changed. I printed all formats up to 20X24 (50X60) and I still do. I dry the prints hanging from lines with pecks, I flatten them with a Büscher 50X60cm press or a Seal 40X50 (20X24 and 16X20). Condenser enlargers are my thing, and anything automated is not for me. I don't make notes while printing, I want to have the printing experience again and again, including the testing. This keeps me awake.

Needless to say I was lost for the camera industry, and the 'sophisticated' darkroom industry. I admire anyone who makes a beautiful photograph or print, no matter how it was done. It is just that I find life complicated enough as it is and found peace in keeping my path as simple as possible.

I try to keep it simple for me- as it is in general.
Always anstonishing for me - little effort, great effect.

jnanian said:

but how complicated do you make it ?

Click to expand...

I look it in this way (at least for my photography): simple photograph is one subject/object - for example one grave stone, or single portrait. More complicate are 2, 3 or more subject/objects and geometric harmony between them and background. Most complicate is to to have many groups of many subject/objects and harmony in every single group and harmony between groups and background.

Making things very complicated does have the advantage of distracting one from the deficiencies in one's own capacity to make interesting photographs, if one becomes absorbed in the complications.

At the same time, someone who uses very complicated methods but who has practised and internalised them to such an extent that they never have to think about them, probably can still pay attention to picture-making.

But it does seem sometimes as if a surprising number of people want film photography to be very difficult and complicated ... witness the advice all to often given to new members just coming to film, where the need for (basically) a dark bag, a tank, and some chemicals can all too rapidly escalate to reading up on the ZS, reading Dunn & Wakefield, film testing, developer testing, use of esoteric DIY developers, sensitometry, densitometry, curves and diagrams and endless bits and bobs of rare and expensive equipment.

This contrasts with almost as many threads where beginners are told they should do nothing at all except use one film one developer and one camera.

No wonder people come away confused and think that they might as well stick to digital

Simple or Complicated both refer to the way of the solution, while Easy or Difficult refer to the distance to it. However there are combinations between them: easy and simple, easy and complicated, difficult and simple, difficult and complicated. There is no one-way only and there is not always the same distance ... and of course the end of the road is also different.

jnanian said:

photographers, how complicated do you make things?

Click to expand...

Between 0 and 100%, but I always make sure whatever the % proportion that I always have something that is worth the effort, whatever the distance, that makes me continue with this passion, whatever the way, and that makes me happy, whatever the solution.

Best!

jnanian said:

and as one goes up in format things become more dire and rigid because the effort and cost of materials increases.
...
i try my best to keep things simple but sometimes things are never as simple as you would like them to be
so you have to make-do...

what about you ?

Click to expand...

Going up in format can make things much more effortful and expensive but I'm not at all sure it makes it more complicated (though perhaps you're not saying that anyway). A couple of years ago, I got myself a 10x8 field camera. I had no intention of going zoney on it, nor worrying too much about how I used the movements. It was a means to the end of making large negatives. I didn't see the process of using the camera as complicated, but I did find it difficult, because almost at the same time I got going with it, my health became a problem and actually carrying the damn thing about to places I wanted to photograph became equally a problem.

As time's gone on, I've found a different way to get the large negatives I crave, through darkroom process, and that is one that is complicated - not so much in the execution, but in understanding how to achieve the results I need for the prints I eventually want to make. Frankly, I'd rather be out on the hill with a big camera than standing in the darkroom getting annoyed with myself and my materials, but sometimes choices are limited by circumstance and one just has to make do.

faberryman said:

There is no reason that things become more "dire" and "rigid" as you go up in format because of cost. Your work necessarily becomes more deliberate, which means that you shoot less. For black and white, a roll of film cost $5.00. Four sheets of 4x5 film costs the same. Given that you will necessarily take fewer photographs, your film cost will likely remain about the same. Your cost for film chemistry will likely remain the same for the same reason. Paper and paper chemistry costs the same regardless of the size of the negative. If you make paper negatives, you can leave film out of the equation altogether. I'm not sure what "dire" means in this context. I also don't understand the preoccupation with keeping things as simple as possible. That is just one approach. The simplicity or complexity of the process depends on what you seek to accomplish.

Click to expand...

its like thurston p howell III and lovie going on a 3 hour cruise and bringing everyting they owned with them. sure, sometimes
they DO need everything they own, but on a 3 hour cruise ?

pdeeh said:

But it does seem sometimes as if a surprising number of people want film photography to be very difficult and complicated ... witness the advice all to often given to new members just coming to film, where the need for (basically) a dark bag, a tank, and some chemicals can all too rapidly escalate to reading up on the ZS, reading Dunn & Wakefield, film testing, developer testing, use of esoteric DIY developers, sensitometry, densitometry, curves and diagrams and endless bits and bobs of rare and expensive equipment.

This contrasts with almost as many threads where beginners are told they should do nothing at all except use one film one developer and one camera.

Click to expand...

exactly ...

There are two kinds of complicated. There's in camera complexity, O. Winston Link's railway photography with passing trains setting off scores of flashbulbs behind the densely lit and carefully composed occupants of a drive thru movie theatre. Then there's image manipulation, which was always present but reached its nadir with digital photography where every element within the frame is subject to change.

I favour naturalistic photography where the manipulation, if it exists, is something the viewer doesn't notice.

blockend said:

. . . I favour naturalistic photography where the manipulation, if it exists, is something the viewer doesn't notice.

Click to expand...

I agree. It's the photograph, not emphasis on the extremes the photographer endured to capture and present it that really matter. I've been pleased with some photographs that took no more effort than stopping a car, rolling down a window, and shooting (plus years of experience!). Other photographs have involved extensive improvising of equipment and settings. If a nearly as nice photograph can be made without all that fuss, why not?

michael_r said:

Some photographs are simple to make, some are complicated. Some prints (and/or negatives) are simple to make, some are complicated. No rules. Do what needs to be done to get the desired result.

Click to expand...

+1
Some of the complexities happen to be a lot of fun!

I try to stream line and simplify everything. Sometimes that becomes a very complicated process. I try to turn everything into a learning process so that it becomes easier next time. I would love it if I could do my art work as easily as breathing, in fact that has been my life time goal, but I am cursed with knowing what I want and sometimes it is complicated to get there. As now I am in a long session, weeks long, making enlarged negatives with analog film. If I want it the way I want it, it needs to be done the way it needs to be done. Sometimes that is complicated but I am working on simplifying it.

My last weekend trip I went to Muir Woods and Marin Headlands. I brought my point and shoot Olympus XA and a 4x5 view camera. I got much more usable and beautiful shots with my point and shoot camera then my Linhof 4x5 camera. I think it's my attitude behind the cameras. The attitude with my simple point and shoot is devil may care. But with the view camera, I have to control my focus, control my exposure and frame it. I'm learning as a photographer to just to relax and get into the zone with simplicity, I get better shots. Less is more.

"As complicated as it needs to be to achieve the end goal."

I have 'a photo' involving a single Lego figure, various lenses, mirrors, lights, flags, etc, all carefully positioned to generate what I can only kind of describe as a visual Rube Goldberg Machine. - I've been working on it for years, finding the right parts, working out alignments and compositions, and now and then even taking an actual photo of it to review. So far every last attempt has ended in the bin because it hasn't had the overall results of what I want from the photo. - A specific visualized look, feel, and overall texture to the image with patterns and visuals within the light and dark of the whole scene. Currently the photo's entire existence lies in a 100 page 8.5x11 notebook, which is nearly full, that has been filled with notes, sketches, and various calculations in an attempt to achieve my end goal. Still haven't nailed it yet, so I'll keep working on it now and then as I get the time and find pieces better suited to the vision of the end product.

At the other end of things there is pulling my phone out, and not putting any more effort into things than maybe taking a second shot while trying to hold my hand a little steadier.



Photography covers a whole range of not only subject matter and styles, but also of purpose and utility. If all I really need is a photographic copy of a serial number and some wiring/port locations, then I don't really need to worry about much beyond whether or not I can still read the contents within the image. - This is not to say that such a simplistic and informationally technical image is always made without regard to photography theory and technique however. I have grabbed a notebook to use as a light reflector or shade while snapping such an image in the past. The goal being simple doesn't mean you can't reach into your tool bag for far more complex ideas and methods to achieve the desired end product.

The other side of the same coin could be the taking of images in a very 'snap shot manner', quickly pointing a camera at something to take the photo as quickly as possible on the spur of the moment. - It is hardly the most reliable means of producing a stunning image, but in my mind a visually stunning image is in no way diminished because its origins. Just as the care and attention that goes into attempts at my Lego figure image have not redeemed them or improved them. - The images have yet to work for me, to meet my goals or standards, and therefore consistently have gotten binned as failures while I go back to the drawing board on them.

jnanian said:

its like thurston p howell III and lovie going on a 3 hour cruise and bringing everyting they owned with them. sure, sometimes they DO need everything they own, but on a 3 hour cruise?

Click to expand...

What was interesting, and funny, about Gilligan's Island was that each of the characters was different, and brought a different perspective to their dilemma. And they remained true to character in their new setting. Imagine how boring it would have been if each of the characters fit the same mold. I'd say the same applies to most things in life, including photography.

michael_r said:

Some photographs are simple to make, some are complicated. Some prints (and/or negatives) are simple to make, some are complicated. No rules. Do what needs to be done to get the desired result.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

+1
Some of the complexities happen to be a lot of fun!

Click to expand...

+2
One true (and somewhat complicated) joy I find, is setting up up a 4 light studio using just a flash meter, and having it work just right on the very first shot.

faberryman said:

What was interesting, and funny, about Gilligan's Island was that each of the characters was different, and brought a different perspective to their dilemma. And they remained true to character in their new setting. Imagine how boring it would have been if each of the characters fit the same mold. I'd say the same applies to most things in life, including photography.

Click to expand...

i agree ..

please see post #11

The photography community should embrace equally the person who wants to follow the zone system, test film and developers using a densitometer, and calculate exposure using a calibrated spotmeter, as well as the person who uses outdated film, calculates exposure according Sunny 16, and develops his film in instant coffee and vitamin c. Let the individual decide for himself which route to take without all the handwringing.

faberryman said:

The photography community should embrace equally the person who wants to follow the zone system, test film and developers using a densitometer, and calculate exposure using a calibrated spotmeter, as well as the person who uses outdated film, calculates exposure according Sunny 16, and develops his film in instant coffee and vitamin c. Let the individual decide for himself which route to take without all the handwringing.

Click to expand...

So true. Said so eloquently.