complicated photography

removed account4 · Feb 6, 2017

agreed

but unfortunately it is kind of over the top
how new people to film are treated
its almost like they have to read
a dissertation on light, physics
theoretical chemistry and
molecular science when they
ask what iso to set their
camera when they use tri x

i have nothing against people who want to
do lots of testing before, during and after they
make an exposure, more power to them !

faberryman · Feb 6, 2017

I think you have a skewed view. I have been in classes with individuals new to film at the community college level for the past several years and have yet to meet anyone that fits your description.

Vaughn · Feb 6, 2017

jnanian said:
agreed

but unfortunately it is kind of over the top
how new people to film are treated
its almost like they have to read
a dissertation on light, physics...

To which I smile and ask why not? They will hear both sides, with several different variations, and get all sort of information that they can read or ignore to their hearts content. Often the OP has gotten the answer s/he needs within the first 10 posts. After that we are talking for our own sake...and rarely another post from the OP. Why? Because more than likely, s/he has taken the suggestions s/he got in the first 10 posts and is happily making photographs while we are still talking physics, chemistry and K factor!

removed account4 · Feb 6, 2017

NedL · Feb 6, 2017

My salt prints are simple: some salt, some silver, put it in the sun, wash and put it in the hypo. In some ways it's simpler than making an enlarged print: you can see the results, so no test strips etc. But I've been in a long testing period to get it working well. There's a lot of "craft" and simple isn't always easy; it's amazing how many little details matter. I probably make it more complicated than it needs to be.

But I get a lot of enjoyment from some of the simplest things in photography: stick a piece of photopaper in a can with a pinhole, and it's amazing how cool the results can be. I have a Nikon N2020 loaded with color film, which goes to Dwayne's for processing, and it's a lot of fun and carefree and I always look forward to getting the prints back. There's room for both simple and complicated.

Cholentpot · Feb 6, 2017

You start simple, grow more and more complex, and then settle at what seems like simple because you've learned so much.

removed account4 · Feb 7, 2017

Cholentpot said:
You start simple, grow more and more complex, and then settle at what seems like simple because you've learned so much.

i am always amazed at how people who know what they are doing, whether it is making a salt print, a carbon print ( with color pigment layers ) solarized negatives,
playing the viola, or clarinet, or driving / parallel parking or doing radical view camera movements, riding a unicycle, juggling, doing an ollie, or whatever it is they love doing
make it look so simple to an onlooker, who then s/he try to do it themselves and it is about as difficult as whittling 2 round balls in a cage from a solid oak broom handle.
i guess in the end everything about photography is simple and complex at the same time and its about turning up the squelch and making the "extra stuff that might not be needed" fade away.

Vaughn · Feb 7, 2017

That is what can be difficult (and rewarding) in teaching -- one has to ignore all the muscle-memory and habitiual practises one has aquired through years of practise and approach the subject as a beginner again...to see it through one's students' eyes.

blockend · Feb 7, 2017

It should be noted that some natural looking prints demand incredible complexity to give them that appearance. There was a link a while ago to a master (whose name escapes me) who printed Cartier-Bresson and Koudleka's work at Magnum and elsewhere, and while none of the technique drew attention to itself and the photographs looked completely naturalistic, his working notes showed incredibly complex intervention with numerous areas of burning in and holding back, many of them graduated. I couldn't even guess how many sheets of paper he used to get one exhibition print, or how he could reproduce another so exactly.

This isn't the guy, but you get the idea:
https://www.slrlounge.com/magnum-photos-darkroom-magic-genesis-photoshop-lightroom/

Gerald C Koch · Feb 7, 2017

Well I personally do not over complicate things with endless testing. I certainly do not consider that to be an end in itself. For example film speed. I lack the equipment necessary to do a meaningful test and leave that up to the manufacturer. But there certainly are people on APUG who think that they can do a better job. They don't seem to grasp that after their testing if their value differs by more than a minor amount then they need to question their method and equipment and not the manufacturer.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 7, 2017

blockend said:
It should be noted that some natural looking prints demand incredible complexity to give them that appearance. There was a link a while ago to a master (whose name escapes me) who printed Cartier-Bresson and Koudleka's work at Magnum and elsewhere, and while none of the technique drew attention to itself and the photographs looked completely naturalistic, his working notes showed incredibly complex intervention with numerous areas of burning in and holding back, many of them graduated. I couldn't even guess how many sheets of paper he used to get one exhibition print, or how he could reproduce another so exactly.

This isn't the guy, but you get the idea:
https://www.slrlounge.com/magnum-photos-darkroom-magic-genesis-photoshop-lightroom/

Kudos to the long suffering soul(s) who had to print CB's awful negatives. The man had no interest in obtaining correct exposure. Proof that you can make perfectly dreadful negatives even using a Leica. Yes I know he was dealing with the decisive moment but that does prevent you from keep track of the light as you are looking for it. Take a look at the work of Edward Weston. For his first twenty years he used no light meters only his experience in judging the light. I believe that he could make a perfect negative in his sleep.

Sirius Glass · Feb 7, 2017

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.

oldtimermetoo said:
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!

If I wanted to be miserable I would have stayed married.

Cholentpot · Feb 7, 2017

jnanian said:
i am always amazed at how people who know what they are doing, whether it is making a salt print, a carbon print ( with color pigment layers ) solarized negatives,
playing the viola, or clarinet, or driving / parallel parking or doing radical view camera movements, riding a unicycle, juggling, doing an ollie, or whatever it is they love doing
make it look so simple to an onlooker, who then s/he try to do it themselves and it is about as difficult as whittling 2 round balls in a cage from a solid oak broom handle.
i guess in the end everything about photography is simple and complex at the same time and its about turning up the squelch and making the "extra stuff that might not be needed" fade away.

Look at it like this, taking a shot with an Argus C3. Lets list the steps for what is a very simple camera.

Ignoring loading and choosing film because I don't have time right now.

Look around and guess exposure. Set aperture, and shutter speed. Frame photo through one sight, look through other and get the range. Do it again once or twice. Push the unlock to left and wind film to next fame, cock shutter with right hand, re-frame and range. Maybe adjust the shutter speed. Set, fire.

This takes maybe 5 seconds, 10 at the most. Looks very simple and it is. It took me a half roll to get the hang of it.

markbarendt · Feb 7, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Kudos to the long suffering soul(s) who had to print CB's awful negatives. The man had no interest in obtaining correct exposure. Proof that you can make perfectly dreadful negatives even using a Leica. Yes I know he was dealing with the decisive moment but that does prevent you from keep track of the light as you are looking for it. Take a look at the work of Edward Weston. For his first twenty years he used no light meters only his experience in judging the light. I believe that he could make a perfect negative in his sleep.

The beauty of HCB's mindset is the results he got. I'd happily trade my understanding of and ability to get good exposures for his ability to see and get a good shot.

removed account4 · Feb 7, 2017

markbarendt said:
The beauty of HCB's mindset is the results he got. I'd happily trade my understanding of and ability to get good exposures for his ability to see and get a good shot.

i couldn't agree with you more !!!

blockend · Feb 8, 2017

markbarendt said:
The beauty of HCB's mindset is the results he got. I'd happily trade my understanding of and ability to get good exposures for his ability to see and get a good shot.

I agree. From the few films we have of HCB at work, a lot of his shots were on the sly. He can be seen walking through market places from deep shade to full sun and doesn't appear to adjust exposure in between. I'm sure he did take readings when able, but he wouldn't miss a shot to do so. Better a badly exposed something than a well exposed nothing, seemed to be his approach. Plus he has access to the best printers around, people who could drag life from a photographic corpse.

Even a "correct" exposure is a starting point, not a destination, and the difference between a good negative and a great print can be hours of toil and reams of paper. When I first saw a Cartier-Bresson exhibition I was struck by how soft and blurry many of the images are compared to what we think of as typical of street photography now, though beautifully printed. One has to remember many of his iconic shots were taken with slow films, a simple viewfinder and a 50mm 3.5 lens. The 1960s generation were typically pushing fast film, shooting at 1/1000 and f8 or f11 with 28mm lenses and nailing any movement. It's a whole different aesthetic.

LAG · Feb 8, 2017

jnanian said:
i guess in the end everything about photography is simple and complex at the same time and its about

jnanian said:
people who know what they are doing... they love doing

LAG · Feb 8, 2017

markbarendt said:
The beauty of HCB's mindset is the results he got. I'd happily trade my understanding of and ability to get good exposures for his ability to see and get a good shot.

Bad business!

markbarendt · Feb 8, 2017

LAG said:
Bad business!

How is getting a truly salable image bad business?

LAG · Feb 8, 2017

markbarendt said:
How is getting a truly salable image bad business?

The bad business is to trade (happily) your understanding ...

markbarendt · Feb 8, 2017

LAG said:
The bad business is to trade (happily) your understanding ...

I took your comment too seriously.

blockend · Feb 8, 2017

LAG said:
The bad business is to trade (happily) your understanding ...

An auto exposure camera can easily replace that knowledge. An eye like Cartier-Bresson's doesn't come with a battery.

LAG · Feb 8, 2017

blockend said:
An auto exposure camera can easily replace that knowledge.

Speak for yourself! (or any other but me) I do not reason that way!

blockend said:
An eye like Cartier-Bresson's doesn't come with a battery.

Another beautiful phrase valid only as an ornament, of zero value as an idea. Even if it were for sale, I still wouldn't buy it!

No offense but maybe you (or markbarendt) are missing H.C-B's ability to see, or maybe you have your eyes half open. I know that no posture of your eyelids will make anyone a better photographer, but would you be so kind to explain in detail what makes you think that your ability to see is worth the change losing your (...) own for his?

(With your previous answer I can imagine the answer, but I do not want to anticipate events, perhaps there is a serious reason behind)

Best!

removed account4 · Feb 8, 2017

knowledge and experience based knowledge can easily be re-acquired
an eye like hcb can't

blockend · Feb 8, 2017

LAG said:
Speak for yourself! (or any other but me) I do not reason that way!

Another beautiful phrase valid only as an ornament, of zero value as an idea. Even if it were for sale, I still wouldn't buy it!

No offense but maybe you (or markbarendt) are missing H.C-B's ability to see, or maybe you have your eyes half open. I know that no posture of your eyelids will make anyone a better photographer, but would you be so kind to explain in detail what makes you think that your ability to see is worth the change losing your (...) own for his?

(With your previous answer I can imagine the answer, but I do not want to anticipate events, perhaps there is a serious reason behind)

Best!

This is probably wasted, but the issue is the value of exposure vs composition. The accusation is that HCB's exposure was way out, which it may have been at times, though I doubt it was consistently. While a precise sense of exposure will better automated exposure, in most cases auto will get things close enough to retrieve a print from a negative. Anyone can be taught technique, masterful composition cannot.

complicated photography

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency