Ilford’s Hopeful Offerings to tri-x 320

Michael R 1974 said:

That is a slippery slope, one I've been on for a long time, and it is not necessarily productive. I have set standards so high and so stringent for myself it is sometimes a challenge just to stay excited about an image. There is always something just a little better in my mind's eye, but it simply doesn't exist, or is not possible. This can lead to boredom, disappointment, and very low output (which by the way does not necessarily mean the output is any better - that is a false equivalency).

But now I don't even know what the topic is anymore. My original point was that to one person Stephen Shore's pictures can be as good as anything by Cartier Bresson, Edward Weston or anybody else. To somebody else they suck. (I'm using Shore as one example here). That type of photography is about place and time. No obvious center of interest is necessary. Someone looking for some type of emotional focal point and purpose in a photograph probably won't find anything meaningful in Shore's work. That is fine. Then there are people like me who find endless enjoyment in looking at Shore's pictures, and are mostly bored by portraits, alternative processes, selective focus etc. That is also fine.

Click to expand...

Michael, there's no such thing as perfection. I am a perfectionist in my work, have a the finest tools available, the ability to devote all my time to photography, and I well understand that it will never be perfect. Because even if you achieve near technical perfection, at that high level it becomes more about your personal imprint on the work. It becomes more about aesthetic choices and while one can argue about the technicalities of composition and design because there are certain rules about it based on human perception, one may choose to break the rules if that breakage better represents what they are trying to express or invoke in the viewer. The rule of thirds doesn't always apply, as well evidenced by my often centered compositions which even the most novice of photographers is instructed not to do. Having a perfectly level horizon might seem sensible and it most often is because having a slightly off horizon makes many people uncomfortable, like a crooked picture on a wall that they feel compelled to straighten. But what if your intention IS to make the viewer uncomfortable? So give up on perfection, because it's really hard to measure it or describe it let alone achieve it. Understand that your work will never be perfect and that as long as you are able to produce a final result that you are happy with, then you are about as close to perfection as you can get. All that said, mastery of the skills, the futile attempt of technical perfection does enable you to better express yourself in your work, as the technical aspects are no longer the limiting factor for your work. But again understand you'll never achieve true perfection, only what is perfect for you.

But if you find the pressure of chasing perfection is doing you harm, then back off. Simplify. Maybe try a camera or process where you accept limitations from the very start, and that knowing that the tools themselves have now placed a limit on you, then maybe you can free yourself. Get a Holga and take your mind off everything but the content. See more, think less.