Delayed gratification is killing me...

[amac212]

low and behold, they were terrible, strange, "what the HELL was I thinking?" bad.

How so? I think we all go through regular periods of feeling like this. And if we respond to the blahs, they can be parlayed into fruitful growth for us as artists, photographers etc.

Can you put your finger on that 'thing' that results in your negative assessment of your past year's output? Perhaps it can be narrowed down to the exposure, the development, the composition, the subject matter...?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've gone through a great shift with my photography over the last year, with my subjective concerns (from the natural landscape to public spaces) and significantly in terms of my aesthetic sensibilities. I have a problem keeping productive and to an extent, forget that actually learning to work (or see) in a new way requires some consistency. I've upended my photographic concerns so much, that I've almost had to start again from the ground up.

I've gone through a transformation in how I shoot too. For the longest time I shot mostly landscapes of water, woods, and urban scenes. Portraits too, a few figure studies, and odds and ends. Mostly medium format and some sheet film, but very little 35mm.
Getting a Leitz enlarger I started being very interested in 35mm, and impressed with how good the quality of my prints were, I started shooting more 35mm. Then I got a Leica camera, and I felt like I wanted to explore other types of photography, like candids, street photography, and so on. I will do more of that, but I've had to reconnect with my past again in order to get back to a balanced approach of what I want to photograph, and this adjustment period has meant a lot of inconsistent output, which has confused me a lot. But gradually, by just sticking with it and practicing a lot, I have come to terms with how to align my expectations. So I'm becoming much happier with the results as the pieces are starting to fall back into place. It took a while. More than a year.

 

[Grumpyshutter]

Just give up on film and go D!&!t&l, then you can have instant disappointment and never need to print a picture ever again...

Only joking.

 

[fotch]

Two out of three weddings in Britain end in divorce, I've often thought it would be more profitable to photograph divorces

Now that is a forward thinking plan.

 

[David Brown]

You can imagine the downer then when I actually see them and they aren't anything like I imagined.

As for the photography: When this happens, do you know WHY the actual pictures don't look like what you imagined? Is it composition? Exposure? Something else? Without some idea of what is going wrong, you cannot make corrections and we cannot advise you. Sorry.

This rollercoaster of emotions is becoming a little too much, perhaps even having an affect on my mental health. I haven't made a single picture I've been happy with for over a year and I can't stop beating myself up about it. Has anyone else had such a long span of fruitless results? I'm incredibly hard on myself with photography, but it's getting a bit silly. I've forgotten how to just enjoy it, it's like my life depends on every image I make.

As for the mental health issues: It's probably better if this forum does not advise you on this. However, (since you asked) if photography is not only not enjoyable, but causes you anguish, quit doing it. It's not worth it.

Others have jokingly suggested a digital camera, but I would seriously suggest one, if you really want to pursue photography. However, to my first point: if after taking a picture and getting the instant feedback, you still don't know what to change, it won't help your problem.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Something just occurred to me, batwister. Maybe what you need to do is actually shoot a lot more film. Seriously, go nuts. Instead of shoot one, take it to the lab, get the results, and do it one by one, go and buy 25 rolls or more of film, and then spend a whole weekend photographing stuff.

I had personally noticed in my fridge a couple of bricks of Agfa, which was expired. Since I had been shooting sheet film, I decided to embark on a use-it-up campaign. I took my Holga, since I don't care about it, and bicycled up and down alleys, photographing stuff. Just using up the film, roll after roll. And what happened? I got a lot of good shots! Sure, some didn't turn out. It's a Holga. But a lot of them did! And really, the real fact of the matter is that many things are a numbers game. You have to keep making the shots.

Also, I just realized that you are going to a lab. Can you process B&W film at home? I use my bathroom, and I've done so for years. Then the cost comes down to time and chemicals.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think Brian has made an excellent point. I must admit that I tend to treat even 35mm film as if it were 8x10 sheets and expect an LF hit rate which is completely unrealistic. I really should "bang away" much more than I do.

However while film is relatively cheap, full roll processing and printing isn't and the OP may be caught in a bit of a bind.

If it is possible and you can find a lab prepared to print only the negs you want to be printed then there is a good case for home film processing where only a changing bag or lightproof cupboard is needed.

You are then in a position to process and discard the failed negs. This may be unrealistic of course but I hope not. DIY processing might well give you a sense of control that will help matters

pentaxuser

 

[batwister]

If it is possible and you can find a lab prepared to print only the negs you want to be printed then there is a good case for home film processing where only a changing bag or lightproof cupboard is needed.

Black and white isn't a problem at home, but I prefer consistency in quality control with colour. As to Brian's suggestion, I'm going to try and shoot 10 rolls in a couple of weeks - a lot for me.

First, I have to send my Pentax back for the fourth time in as many months because of a shutter issue which won't go away. The only place with Pentax parts in the UK are flummoxed by it. My Hasselblad back is dead and needs to be sent off as well. So this is at least another three weeks hiatus, if I send them off at the same time - £££. Constantly switching from the square to the 67 brings its own set of issues too, which aren't helping my growth as an image maker. You might better understand my comment about the universe trying to tell me something. Not hearing voices yet though.

It looks like I'll be forced to pull out the DSLR at some point.

Thanks for all the advice.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well I certainly hadn't realised you had all these accompanying photographic problems. These are bad news. The good news is that my conclusion now is that you are justifiably frustrated and this is bound to affect your outlook. In fact if you weren't more than a little peeved and generally down in the mouth then I'd be worried about your mental state

It is like that very good book I once saw debunking the belief that we are all a mass of neuroses and on the precipice of terminal depression. It is called I'm OK, you're OK.

I pronounce you "OK"

pentaxuser

 

[markbarendt]

Constantly switching from the square to the 67 brings its own set of issues too, which aren't helping my growth as an image maker.

Umm, I doubt that.

To be blunt IMO "artistically" that's nonsense, great photos can be made in any format. Format only becomes important when the paper (output size) is defined before the shoot or the subject itself defines it and even then it is only a marginal concern.

I did an employee-of-the-month shoot this week, 3 separate subjects, oilfield mechanics in their normal work attire and baseball caps and as I walked in to do the shoot the client specified 12x24 paper vertical and wanted the background behind the receptionist's desk (which could not be moved) with the company logo which were all under fluorescent office lights, and as he's walking away says "make them look good". The format of the camera was completely irrelevant, as it should be.

You can also see the format vs subject definition play out in many movies quite starkly. The movie screen is a fixed entity, you can't tilt a theater 90 clockwise on demand and because of that dutching/tilting the camera is reserved for special effects. Cinematographers can still focus our attention on a vertical or square portrait within that fixed horizontal frame. They use lighting, DOF, somebody's head in the way, color, focal length, and other tools to creatively "crop" our attention down to the subject.

The camera in your hand is just a tool, like a screwdriver or a paint brush, it is just a means to an end; the camera does not define the output or focus the viewers attention, we as photographers and printers do.

With regard to the malfunctioning equipment, that's a real problem. Get one camera really fixed and then go shooting. If it helps cut some masks in various formats to fit say your Hasselblad's viewfinder so you can see/experiment with various crops while you are out shooting.

 

[batwister]

Umm, I doubt that.

To be blunt IMO "artistically" that's nonsense, great photos can be made in any format. Format only becomes important when the paper (output size) is defined before the shoot or the subject itself defines it and even then it is only a marginal concern.

I think this is generally true. With many of the square formatists I look at however, their chosen frame format defines their aesthetic - which tends to be more formal and balanced compositions - 'zen' like in a word. Then there are those photographers who through simply investigating the medium, mix up the cameras they use. But very few IMHO work this way successfully. I take your point however that it shouldn't have to define your working method as many painters use different canvas proportions while maintaining their style. Andrew Wyeth used the square quite a bit. Thinking of the Pentax as a 'Super SLR' though, it's a very different beast to the Hasselblad. If the 'Blad is a Rolls Royce, the Pentax is a Ford Mustang. You just wouldn't drive them the same way - or even on the same roads!

Anyway, today, after a few exposure failures with the Pentax sticky shutter issue, I made an image which felt significant. I've been thinking about a body of work through which I hope to define my critical practice and this image could potentially be the stimulus. Then again, I haven't seen it yet...

 

[Rudeofus]

I've gone through a great shift with my photography over the last year, with my subjective concerns (from the natural landscape to public spaces) and significantly in terms of my aesthetic sensibilities.

That may be key to your troubles, broken camera shutter or not. And I don't want to imply inexperience with the new subject matter, but instead the question whether the new subject matter touches you emotionally as much as natural landscapes. I know from personal experience that I won't ever enlarge a single negative that I shot "because I should take at least some pictures when I'm already here", regardless of how much effort I put into composition, lighting and whatnot. Just looking at these negs in the dark room makes me almost sick.

Maybe it is not a change in equipment or technique, but a simple and brutal change in subject matter that will get you back on track.

 

[batwister]

That may be key to your troubles, broken camera shutter or not. And I don't want to imply inexperience with the new subject matter, but instead the question whether the new subject matter touches you emotionally as much as natural landscapes. I know from personal experience that I won't ever enlarge a single negative that I shot "because I should take at least some pictures when I'm already here", regardless of how much effort I put into composition, lighting and whatnot. Just looking at these negs in the dark room makes me almost sick.

Well, you've got me thinking. I suppose because pressing the shutter is an act of consummation, most of the time, it can be enough to satisfy. It doesn't help that, with traditional photography, we're aware that there's a literal chemical reaction taking place as well as psychological. It's so easy to become addicted to this and it takes real introspection to recognise. It's like the climax of loveless sex most of the time - after which comes the inevitable nagging sense of remorse. I suppose when there's a true realisation of something great, you know it before the act, and don't have to kid yourself afterwards. But anyway, too much metaphor for one day.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Batwister, a basic law of photography is that all latent photographs are superb until processed, then the photographs decay into something more realistic.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The solution, as it is with anything else in life, is to hope for the best and expect the worst... especially when dealing with other people... like loaning them money. If I expect something to suck I'm always happy when it's only mediocre.

 

[Rudeofus]

I suppose when there's a true realisation of something great, you know it before the act, and don't have to kid yourself afterwards.

My take at this is: if you see (or sense) a true realisation of something great, then you see a goal (or at least something to aim for) ahead of you and will be ready to spend all the effort it takes to reach it. I don't believe in images that just happen to effortlessly fly into your camera and through the enlarger onto the paper.

 

[tkamiya]

Seriously speaking, if you are experiencing that much of an emotional roller-coaster-ride and to a point you are wondering if it is starting to affect your sanity, you should check with a mental health professional.

Serious hobbies aren't supposed to be easy but it isn't supposed to create that much of anguish and disappointment AND without giving you a sense of purpose or a desire to improve.

I realize this is Internet and I should take everything with grain of salt, and I am NOT a mental health care professional, but it just doesn't sound healthy. That's what I would seriously consider doing if I was experiencing that much of problems.

 

[markbarendt]

Thinking of the Pentax as a 'Super SLR' though, it's a very different beast to the Hasselblad. If the 'Blad is a Rolls Royce, the Pentax is a Ford Mustang. You just wouldn't drive them the same way - or even on the same roads!

Ok, let's test your analogy a bit.

Are you going to let your car define where you go or let your driving needs define the car you pick?

Your thought that "With many of the square formatists I look at however, their chosen frame format defines their aesthetic" is in my opinion backward. I think that their chosen aesthetic drove their frame format choice. I.e. they bought the car that fit their driving needs.

I would also suggest that there are many photographers who use a variety of formats successfully. I know some of these guys personally. One, as far as I know only has two cameras, an 8x10 and an iPhone. Another does digital at his day job and 4x5 for all his personal stuff. For both the work they do with each camera is very different, but both sets of work for each are great. For both their camera choices are defined by the result they want in a given setting.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

<snip> Are you going to let your car define where you go or let your driving needs define the car you pick? <snip>

Umm... yes, and yes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

<snip> Are you going to let your car define where you go or let your driving needs define the car you pick? <snip>

Umm... yes, and yes.

Well slap me silly and call me Judy ... Old-N-Feeble agrees with me. [All fun intended. This is not a negative [pun intended] reflection on O-N-F]


Photographs of my driving taken on White Knuckle on Behind the Rocks trail, Moab UT. Hasselblad 503 CX 80mm lens Kodak UltraColor 400 120.

 

[markbarendt]

Looks fun Sirius.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well slap me silly and call me Judy ... Old-N-Feeble agrees with me. [All fun intended. This is not a negative [pun intended] reflection on O-N-F]

Oops... it was a mistake and it will never happen again.

 

[dorff]

When I started with the Pentax 6x7, it was after having used a Mamiya RZ67 for a year, so the frame size and aspect ratio was something I was used to. But I was using only the waist level finder with the Mamiya, and of course the prism finder for the Pentax. I think this has had an influence on the photographs of people, because of the way of interacting with the subject, the height of the camera etc. So far I enjoy the Pentax, though, for field work and hikes. If you have had the camera for a long time, and the decline in results is something that has happened suddenly, then I think you have to think about whether there is something else distracting you. Maybe work, family or social life. Maybe you are a bit depressed and you do not realise it. That will definitely influence the way in which you look at your photographs. But I am not a psychologist, just noting that you sound a bit strung. What helps for me at times, is to stop all forms of photography and photographic reading / learning, for a couple of weeks. Stay away from all the forums you frequent, stash your photo gear away, close the books and put them into the book shelf. Then go around, and LOOK at the world without photographing it. Ask yourself what things you like in the world around you, what you find interesting, what reflects what you are aware of in yourself. Simply be aware of your world and your response to it. Then after two or three weeks, go and photograph those things that moved you.

I find that when I photograph my children in a non-intrusive sort of way, it almost always breaks the ice for me. It is not that the photos are necessarily great, but the fact that I enjoy seeing the results none the less, makes the effort worthwhile. Eventually, when I get the opportunity to photograph other things, I have a positive mindset. I should also add that I seldom shoot CN film on my Pentax. My BW results tend to please me slightly more on average than the colour negatives. Maybe it is because it is sometimes really difficult to get the colour to gel with all the other elements in an image, while BW is forgiving in that sense.

As a last thought, the only sure way to get no images worth keeping, is to take no images at all. The only way to increase your hit rate, is to practice. The latter must have an element of evaluation / critique and then repeating the effort with the added insight. Just continuing to randomly shoot things without closing the learning loop will probably not help you understand what is wrong with your photographs, which may more be a lack of visualising properly than faulty technique etc.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Live in the moment. Beauty and magic presents itself at any moment. When you're present, you can fully relish it. Maybe capture it with your film camera

 

[batwister]

When I started with the Pentax 6x7, it was after having used a Mamiya RZ67 for a year, so the frame size and aspect ratio was something I was used to. But I was using only the waist level finder with the Mamiya, and of course the prism finder for the Pentax. I think this has had an influence on the photographs of people, because of the way of interacting with the subject, the height of the camera etc. So far I enjoy the Pentax, though, for field work and hikes. If you have had the camera for a long time, and the decline in results is something that has happened suddenly, then I think you have to think about whether there is something else distracting you. Maybe work, family or social life. Maybe you are a bit depressed and you do not realise it. That will definitely influence the way in which you look at your photographs. But I am not a psychologist, just noting that you sound a bit strung. What helps for me at times, is to stop all forms of photography and photographic reading / learning, for a couple of weeks. Stay away from all the forums you frequent, stash your photo gear away, close the books and put them into the book shelf. Then go around, and LOOK at the world without photographing it. Ask yourself what things you like in the world around you, what you find interesting, what reflects what you are aware of in yourself. Simply be aware of your world and your response to it. Then after two or three weeks, go and photograph those things that moved you.

I find that when I photograph my children in a non-intrusive sort of way, it almost always breaks the ice for me. It is not that the photos are necessarily great, but the fact that I enjoy seeing the results none the less, makes the effort worthwhile. Eventually, when I get the opportunity to photograph other things, I have a positive mindset. I should also add that I seldom shoot CN film on my Pentax. My BW results tend to please me slightly more on average than the colour negatives. Maybe it is because it is sometimes really difficult to get the colour to gel with all the other elements in an image, while BW is forgiving in that sense.

As a last thought, the only sure way to get no images worth keeping, is to take no images at all. The only way to increase your hit rate, is to practice. The latter must have an element of evaluation / critique and then repeating the effort with the added insight. Just continuing to randomly shoot things without closing the learning loop will probably not help you understand what is wrong with your photographs, which may more be a lack of visualising properly than faulty technique etc.

I've only shot about five rolls so far on the Pentax, with it being sent off for long periods.

I definitely need a break from photography and a bit more balance in my life, that's for sure. I eat, sleep and breathe it and have done for well over a year. Every single bookmark in my web browser for instance, is photography related - which really is quite worrying actually. It's one of those things though - some people will call you mad and others will admire you, with the romantic notion of "living life by your own rules". But who do you listen to? I'm sure I'm not the only person on APUG, who, in a psychologists opinion, might have an unhealthy attachment. But I'll definitely be taking a holiday... should I bring my camera?