Going back to real photography

perkeleellinen said:

And whereas it would be plainly ludicrous to claim that you enjoy poetry because it's not maths, it would also be strange to claim that poems and maths are the same because they're both written onto paper.

Click to expand...

Comparing a work of literature written out on a typewriter to the same thing written by hand with a nice pen would be a better analogy (or is there a digitalogy option?!!).

seafoto said:

I am in awe of the vast knowledge of subscribers on this site and wonder why they stick to this peculiar, messy long winded method of making pictures ?

Click to expand...

We certainly don't do it for the convenience.


Steve

Comparing a work of literature written out on a typewriter to the same thing written by hand with a nice pen would be a better analogy

Click to expand...

No, because written language is already digital, typewriter or handwritten makes no fundamental difference, only superficial differences. The differences between real photography and digital imaging are fundamental rather than superficial.

Why is written language digital? My diary goes nowhere near a computer.

Written language is digital, because you use digits.

And to twist words a bit further; digital photograpy is abstract while analog photography is real.

Why do I pursue analog photography? Because of its tactile nature and the countless nuances of the variables that makes it both wonderful and frustrating at times. I love that I can make a photograph or print.

The darkroom is digital because my digits focus the head!

Steve Smith said:

We certainly don't do it for the convenience.


Steve

Click to expand...

Actually, that's one of the reasons I started back into film.

My darkroom is at this point just for personal work.

For commissioned jobs like weddings and senior portraits I shoot, drop the film in the mail, and it comes back "done".

We all have the choice of how much we do ourselves with any particular film we shoot.

I think it's fairly convenient, I have a Nova and the chemicals are ready whenever I am. In fact it's far more convenient than painting, composing a score or writing a poem, to name three other artistic expressions. But then, maybe all of those are digital and there's no difference.

BetterSense said:

This statement is simple absurdity. I can think of no way to justify it. If there is no difference, then why would digital imaging ever have been invented? By your statement, even inventing it would be impossible to do, because it's the same thing as chemical photography, so if it's "one and the same" then it can't justifiably even be said to have been invented or to exist.


More absurdity. You may want to do some basic reading on how digital imaging works. There is this new thing called a "pixel". It's pretty revolutionary from what I understand.


Giggle. That's a funny statement coming from someone who insists that photochemical photographs and semiconductor-based digital imaging are worthy of "no distinction".

I feel that "real photography" is a fitting description of photochemical photography because a real, physical photograph is generated. Digital imaging creates an image in the form of a matrix of numbers, which is its overwhelming strength and crowning achievement as a technology. You could say that digital imaging's greatest advancement is the ability to capture an image without having to actually generate a physical photograph. That is indeed why it has been adopted as the dominant imaging technology for most commercial purposes.

Click to expand...

Thanks for stating my thoughts and saving me the time to respond to someone puking out the digital-is-the-same-as-analog houie!

Steve

I would suggest that there is also a top-down aspect to digital & computer and a bottom-up aspect to film & darkroom work, that makes for a huge distinction.

By top-down I mean that someone else has made a lot of the decisions for you, although you will likely never know their names, their specific reasoning, or their agendas (sales!). You just have to accept it on faith, because you can't change it. However, I suggest that if you did know their reasoning, it is possible that you would not agree with some of their decisions, like details about how they compute exposures on automatic cameras. They are aiming for a "good photo most of the time." Is that really what you want? Don't you really want a great photo most of the time (unattainable, but worth striving for)?

By bottom-up I mean that you the photographer have to make specific decisions all along the way, including focus, exposure, development, printing, etc. It is difficult and errors are likely, although you are the one in control. Nobody is forcing you to do things a certain way (sometimes for their own reasons, e.g. marketing). Perhaps some manufacturers (Kodak) influenced how you did things, but it was a fairly soft touch compared to the domineering control behind modern digital products.

There is a political analogy to the top-down, bottom-up philosophy but maybe I better not go there. But personally I hate the top-down form of anything. People you don't know are making decisions that affect you, without your input or knowledge. And you have to pay them for their services, big time. Orwell understood this completely, many years ago.

jscott said:

I would suggest that there is also a top-down aspect to digital & computer and a bottom-up aspect to film & darkroom work, that makes for a huge distinction.

[...]

Click to expand...

Excellent analysis.

Having written sofware professionally for the last 20+ years I am acutely aware of the degree to which my design and implementation choices can and do limit the end user's choices, often intentionally.

For example, I much prefer implementing a dodge or burn by physically casting shadows in the projected enlarger light using my hands, rather than simply clicking a mouse to execute some nameless programmer's algorithm which merely simulates his interpretation of that reality.

But that's just me...

Ken

I do it because I can make my own cameras, and get results (not always the results I want, but results all the same!

I can't do that with digital.

With a fistful of silver

Ken Nadvornick said:

Excellent analysis.

Having written sofware professionally for the last 20+ years I am acutely aware of the degree to which my design and implementation choices can and do limit the end user's choices, often intentionally.

For example, I much prefer implementing a dodge or burn by physically casting shadows in the projected enlarger light using my hands, rather than simply clicking a mouse to execute some nameless programmer's algorithm which merely simulates his interpretation of that reality.

But that's just me...

Ken

Click to expand...

And me, and many more!

Dan Henderson said:

...
Why do great guitar players "stick to" 50 year old Strats and tube amps?

Click to expand...

Why do violin players stick with 400 year old Strads?

I just had my old Washburn parlor guitar, one that I've owned for 50 of its 100+ years, brought back to perfect playing condition by a luthier who does restorations for museums. I can't even really play. I can't, in fact, really afford what it cost me to turn this instrument, which I purchased in 1961 for $8, into something I'd have to fight to keep the collectors from stealing. I just love a REAL instrument. Can't keep my hands off of it. The guitar deserves to be what it really is, and, at 24,900+ days old, I'm going to take lessons. Over the many years, my bond with the instrument has become like a marriage.

Photography is like that too. I may be an anachronism. In fact, I'm sure I am. I have spent my life building not only these skills but the sensibility that one needs to employ them to fully express what they make possible. I had my fling with digital, and it was fun, but am I to sacrifice the fruits of my long and passionate labors, and love, to become a beginner again in a medium that requires so little? Just like every other clicker? Commit myself to the easy, the mediocre?

Digital has its uses, things it does really well, and I will happily use it for those purposes. I do love how efficient it is at accumulating images. But even that is a problem. I have issues with my own addiction to accumulation, and too many images make a big mess, just like all those old enlargers I ought to get rid of.

Today I was out in the trailer I use for a darkroom, making a print, and I loved doing it. I do not love sitting in front of a computer. Were I still working commercially, I would have to do that, because you really can't make a living if you don't these days. It's a job. You know, J-O-B. Since I'm "retired" now, I don't have to do that.

I will do what I want to do now. What feels good to me is film, paper, and chemicals. What looks best to me is a silver (or carbon, or platinum, etc.) print. Not entirely though; a long time color printer, I'll never make another C print. I will scan the film and print it on an exquisite paper with my ink jet printer - because I like the prints better. That is a real improvement. Not so with black and white, which is most of my work these days. But, did I not say "I will scan the film"?

You know, not everyone can do this work. I can, and I do it pretty well. It's a rare thing, and it's what I am here to do. I have built myself to do it. It was a lot of work, a lot of love.

I did that. I'll stop when I stop everything else.

I just do what I love.

Recently I emerged from a one year and some odd months long hiatus from the magic of printing in a darkroom. Having been forced to employ film scanning and inkjet printing to make my prints it was a sigh of relief to not have to anymore. As much as I liked the results from the inkjet, I just couldn't bring myself to love the process.
I am sorry, but it is a stale, clinical, and boring way of making photographs, with much too much of the real knowledge behind what actually happens is left to reside with those that designed the machines. And, I am appalled at the cost for keeping such a system running. The cost, for me, to come up with a good print was at least twice what I can manage in the darkroom, especially if time is taken into account.

Not printing in the darkroom also meant that I couldn't see the full circle of what happens after I process my film. In the year that went by, I shot at least 300 rolls of film. None of them printed or even made contact sheets of. This meant I lost touch with my ability to consistently create negatives that print with ease at a single grade of paper, because the scanner lied to me about my exposures; I lost that edge.

Just do what you love. Forget about the rest.

This has been a fascinating read for me. I'm just getting started with photography, aside from point and shoot stuff. I've done a great deal of reading and thinking, and digital really has no allure for me. Like others here, I work on a computer all day (software development), and can't really look forward to using one for a hobby. I'm hoping to be developing my own b&w film in a couple months, and printing in a darkroom by this time next year.

I have no problem with digital cameras, photographs, or photographers. To each his own. I look forward to seeing what I can do with a camera, film, etc. I have no interest in using Photoshop (et al) as a part of that process.

Pete

for me digital is a great tool but film is an art plus the cost of a dslr is stupid

plus i do love putting the film in and so on however i cant get the HD images i could with my digital i had
but i think thats more me than camera

i think that digital makes you lazy in a way as you can take 500 shots and then delete the rubbish ones

with film you take more time to pick your shot and think more about what your shooting for me
the best way i can describe it is its like being a lord of time i can freeze it take a moment that will never ever be seen again

a cloud a sunset a bird and when i look at others old photos im going back in time and seeing what that person see

for me its like magic now i have said this before and an old photographer said im a natural photographer lol dont know if thats true but as long as i can get 35mm film ill use it

im 35 and iv grown up with tech but the magic of the 35mm film camera is still a powerful spell

Well, I don't use the darkroom. Never bothered to learn traditional . I worked in a lab for 4 years and learned a lot about the automated process. Nevertheless, I tried once the darkroom stuff and found it boring. What I love about photography and specially analog is that you just need a film roll and an ancient camera to produce stunning pictures. Cameras that most people will throw away. I discovered this when I began to see manual film cameras like Canon A-1 and Nikon FM being sold for 60 euros, the equivalent for 40 bucks.

True lovers of photography find the magic to understand the craft of producing images with old equipment. Automated cameras, although they're effective to produce work that needs to be done quickly (such as my Mamiya 645 AF), there is no doubt that an ancient camera is a magical tool nowadays.

Film photography in any shape or form, from 35mm to ULF relies on experience, judgement and skill to obtain the results you want using an holistic approch: visual arrangement, conception, processing and printing; you know what you want, can place the result within several matrices of probability and likelihood and feel confident about achieving the result — all through a vast storehouse of experience that only film can provide. Too many digimons (who have no foundation knowledge in traditional photography) do not grasp this and insist, often very loudly, that they are better photographers (etc, etc.). I have long since given up trying to get the message across with them firing back Church of Scientology-style, "film died long ago, do you hear me, get a life!". Pffft—!

Yes, I've encountered that attitude SO many times....maybe it's a sign of insecurity..

Dan Henderson said:

Why do great guitar players "stick to" 50 year old Strats and tube amps?

Click to expand...

Because they are crazy! The hollow body is the king of the electric guitar - preferably with Gretsch on the headstock!

I find it quite strange that despite being a builder of valve (tube) based audio equipment, my normal gigging amplifier is a Line 6 solid state amp with tons of software to make it sound like a collection of classic valve amps. It is actually very good but I am currently building a small valve amplifier to use for smaller gigs to re-dress the balance.


Steve.

I hope it goes up to 11?

Ah yes the of fixer. I own and operate an accommodation business in the summer, but when things slow down in our off season I feel the pull to my darkroom and creating art. Digital certainly has its place, but for me real photography is in the darkroom. I stick to this "messy long winded method of making pictures" because it is my passion. There is always so much to learn, so much to experiment with and so much magic happens in the darkroom.

Haha love it!

you will know

I found this page today while I was doing an inventory of my old cameras and photography equipment with the idea that I would put all the stuff on ebay.
I have not used the equipment for years, it's dusty, and it takes up space.
I wondered "Can my digital camera (the one from which the batteries are always either lost or dead, the one from which my crashed hard drive images or scratched disks are lost) do just as good as my cumbersome SLR and darkroom? Feeling philosophical I looked on-line for the value of traditional photography.

I live to tinker. I thought about an old "59 English Ford I had with a 4 cylinder flathead with bad rod bearings. and the discussion I had with a mechanic about whether or not a 1978 Pinto engine would fit. "Sure", he said, "You can make it fit - but you'll know it's the wrong engine." He said, "Find a way to fix the original."

Today I remembered my college photography classes, my old, damp basement darkroom back in the day, and the pride I got from from the final results of my K1000 and that rickety old enlarger. I still have those black and white photographs, and although they might not be masterpieces, they do have a "real" look and feel.

I found this site, read some posts, wrote this response, and got my questions answered - and besides, most of my old stuff ain't worth a whole lot of cash.

freddjos said:

I found this site, read some posts, wrote this response, and got my questions answered

Click to expand...

Welcome home.