jimgalli said:Mostly though the problem is the subjectivity of the viewer. I would challenge Grant and others with a reciprocal argument. Are you unwilling to make the effort to move to ULF and therefore hiding behind a sour grapes argument that "I'm not going there because it's just a bunch of folks making boring pictures with wild notions of mastery only because it's a big expensive camera etc." No less valid than your original assumptions.
VoidoidRamone said:I think it would be a lot of fun, and a good challenge, to try ULF- but I personally don't have the funding right now to shoot film that costs in upwards of $5 a sheet. I also think that my work and style is perfectly suited to any format 4x5 or smaller. I don't think that I need to shoot in a format in which I am more concerned on how big it is rather than be able to focus all my attention on what I'm actually taking a photo of. Sometimes it seems to me that Alt. Process and ULF photographers feel a lot more secure knowing that if they are shooting with something that is "obscure" that more people will become interested in it- I think this is mainly due to the sheer size of their negative or the chemical makeup of the print.
-Grant
blansky said:One type, left brained, loves the process, and dabbles and makes equipment and processes and chemical concoctions to fulfil his love of this side of the equation.
The other is more "arty" or "creative" and attempts to capture emotion, or subject matter that the image speaks for itself and is not dependant on process so much.
VoidoidRamone said:I think it would be a lot of fun, and a good challenge, to try ULF- but I personally don't have the funding right now to shoot film that costs in upwards of $5 a sheet. I also think that my work and style is perfectly suited to any format 4x5 or smaller. I don't think that I need to shoot in a format in which I am more concerned on how big it is rather than be able to focus all my attention on what I'm actually taking a photo of. Sometimes it seems to me that Alt. Process and ULF photographers feel a lot more secure knowing that if they are shooting with something that is "obscure" that more people will become interested in it- I think this is mainly due to the sheer size of their negative or the chemical makeup of the print.
-Grant
Grady O said:"you are going beyond what is reasonable and making silly assumptions"
It seems that you are the only one making the assumptions. Grant never said that ALL alt. processes were as he described, simply that some people seem to hide poor photographs behind complicated processes.
It appears you simply have some grudge against people doing alt process work? Why should it matter where and how the materials were procured? Can you show those of us that are "missing the point" some example of a print "magically" becoming a work of art simply because of its process?Grady O said:I think that most of you are missing the point. Yes there are MANY bad photos with 35mm on traditional papers, but it just seems that when that same photo is taken with some obscure ULF size and printed on a paper that was dicontinued years ago and is only special order over the internet that same photo magically becomes a work of art.
What is the real problem here? I don't see any more or less crap or "lame" subject matter coming from those that do ULF or Alt process work than those doing smaller, more traditional processes. In fact, just by sheer numbers of practitioners of each it stands to reason there would be more crap created by those using the latter. And your reasoning as to what is accepted as a "good" photograph confuses me even more. A photograph of say... vomit might get a lot of responses as well. Am I to think that is any more a "good" photograph simply because it illicits a lot of response? I understand one man's regurgitated food and drink is another man's art and can leave it at that. I don't need to look at what others think to be able to decide what is good in my eyes.Grady O said:...of lame subject matter with an ongoing list of all their technical details that get many responses that I know they wouldnt had they been shot with a smaller format.
Much the same as saying, "I have a lot of friends that are Penguins, but have you ever tried to fly with one?". I don't feel as if I have anything to defend here. Still interested in seeing some of that magical art you spoke of as well.Grady O said:You seem to have forgotten the part where I said, "I have seen many lovely photos done in ULF or alt. process"...
billschwab said:Much the same as saying, "I have a lot of friends that are Penguins, but have you ever tried to fly with one?". I don't feel as if I have anything to defend here. Still interested in seeing some of that magical art you spoke of as well.
Bill
Sorry Roger, I completely disagree with you here. Saying simply because someone is enamoured by and uses alt processes that they should be any more evolved creatively than a hack with a 35mm camera is ludicrous. I'm hoping you can show some examples to back-up your statement?Roger Hicks said:The percentage of alternative process users and ULF users that displays dull pictures with pride does however seem significantly higher than one might reasonably expect.
Apparently absolutely nothing.VoidoidRamone said:What does this have to do with penguins and magic?
-Grant
You must be basing this on something. Can you show me where this is so? Granted, there is a lot to talk about when using alt processes. It is not simply mixing up some yellow or white packages and souping your film. I think this we all understand. Where does it turn to bragging and placing oneself on a higher pedestal?VoidoidRamone said:My reason for "singling" out these processes is because I find it that people who are shooting with ULF and Alt. Process seem to almost brag about their work more and seem to put themselves on a higher pedestal than photographers who shoot in small formats.
billschwab said:Sorry Roger, I completely disagree with you here. Saying simply because someone is enamoured by and uses alt processes that they should be any more evolved creatively than a hack with a 35mm camera is ludicrous. I'm hoping you can show some examples to back-up your statement?
All due respect,
Bill
VoidoidRamone said:I don't think I'm being overly defensive here. I do not think I ever said that using a smaller format means a better photograph either. And I don't think I ever said that there are more good photographs being made with small formats than with large format. My only point was to provide a topic for thought. Everything I'm saying here is subjective. My reason for "singling" out these processes is because I find it that people who are shooting with ULF and Alt. Process seem to almost brag about their work more and seem to put themselves on a higher pedestal than photographers who shoot in small formats. Is a photo of a tree any better because someone carried a 90lb camera through the woods and then printed it with highly toxic chemicals? And yes, I feel inferior and I am very jealous.
-Grant
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?