When you say something incomprehensible, people are going to ask you questions. It just goes with the territory. On the other hand, maybe "luck" is having someone jump to your defense when you say something incomprehensible, even when he doesn't have any idea what you are talking about either.
Is there really a strong interest in film photography?
-
A
- Thread starter gone
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Free Mini Radio triggers: Light pix lab Flash Q
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
When you say something incomprehensible, people are going to ask you questions. It just goes with the territory. On the other hand, maybe "luck" is having someone jump to your defense when you say something incomprehensible, even when he doesn't have any idea what you are talking about either.
MattKing
Moderator
In most cases, the "luck" is really the delayed discovery of happy results.
It is the time between the exposure and discovering the results that gives the sense of "good fortune", which makes the discovery more fun.
Luck is the wrong term, but it gives a sense of what is felt.
For those who are sufficiently experienced as to almost never be surprised at the results from film, there is actually a bit less fun!
It is the time between the exposure and discovering the results that gives the sense of "good fortune", which makes the discovery more fun.
Luck is the wrong term, but it gives a sense of what is felt.
For those who are sufficiently experienced as to almost never be surprised at the results from film, there is actually a bit less fun!
Is that "Good Luck" or "Bad Luck"?
I think that those are sources of variability, and introduce uncertainty in the outcome. Whether they'll result in a mistake or not, it'll depend on the goal. Given that the purpose here is not to design and manufacture the Hubble Space Telescope, or the Curiosity Rover, but rather to complete a creative process, variability does not always equate mistake. In fact, it might lead to something better than expected.
I think not everyone engages in a creative endeavour with a clear aim and well defined plan in mind. For some, the idea is start with a simple sketch/plan, but then to roll some dice along the way, as it might lead somewhere enjoyable.
I know this doesn't appeal to people who start or contribute to 50 pages-long threads on shooting their first roll of Acros II and whether they should use Xtol stock or replenished, but it happens. Other types of film photographers are out there.
Last edited:
Mistakes can lead to creative avenues. But one must recognize that mistake and be able to take advantage of it, to the point of repeatability. Otherwise, it is like the metaphor of monkeys with typewriters coming up with lines from Shakespeare. There is a big difference between taking (creative) chances and hoping some variance or slip in the process will deliver a pleasing result. Anyone can make one great photograph. It takes skill to consistently make many.
If that really happened, there would be no reason anymore to make and purchase live Jazz records. Do you like Jazz music? Scratch that, do you like any music in general? If so, do you only listen to the original studio album, where no 'mistakes' were made?
Who is the one who decides what is a mistake? Is any difference a mistake? Was the mistake in the studio album or in the live interpretation?
What is the 'reference' in any artistic process, and which instance of the result deserves to become 'repeatable'?
Last edited:
h
If you pour in the fixer first, it is a mistake. Of course, you can always say you were improvising if it makes you feel better.
If you pour in the fixer first, it is a mistake. Of course, you can always say you were improvising if it makes you feel better.
Last edited:
There is no "live" photography, so your comparison to a performance is really not germane. A jazz or classical performance that is poorly performed does not make it better or even enjoyable just because it is live. Does a typo or ink smear make a novel better in any way? An error is an error. And counting on random technical mistakes to become your art is not going to be very satisfying or fruitful.
I am unsure why you have decided that I do not like music. We (or at least me) are discussing film photography.
I am unsure why you have decided that I do not like music. We (or at least me) are discussing film photography.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
For some, photography shares some characteristics with performance art.
For others, photography has more in common with large building architecture.
The comparisons with music are more appropriate for the former.
As I've posted before, photography is a big tent!
Maybe I’m slow, but beyond the subject’s possible performance, I don’t see photography as a performance. Unless that performance is the act of composing and tripping the shutter— a performance that can only be inferred, rarely witnessed.
Possibly performance in the darkroom, once again inferred, not witnessed.
Louis Pasteur said, “In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind.”
'Pouring fixer first' was not in the list I compiled as a reply to you in my post earlier. Go back and read that list carefully.
I feel you're making an effort to misrepresent other people's views for the sake of your argument.
MattKing
Moderator
The characteristics that are shared with performance art are the give and take between a photographer, the subject, the light and to a certain extent the equipment and materials.
The adaptation on the fly, and the discovery of possibilities as one "works" a subject, responding to movement and change and revelation as one encounters them. As well as in some cases causing that change to happen, and then reacting to it as it unfolds.
In some cases, those efforts can be combined with anticipated later efforts in the darkroom or the post-processing.
Much more common for street photography and journalism and some types of editorial photography than with other types of photography.
The adaptation on the fly, and the discovery of possibilities as one "works" a subject, responding to movement and change and revelation as one encounters them. As well as in some cases causing that change to happen, and then reacting to it as it unfolds.
In some cases, those efforts can be combined with anticipated later efforts in the darkroom or the post-processing.
Much more common for street photography and journalism and some types of editorial photography than with other types of photography.
I was responding to your post wherein you introduced the musical performance analogy. Since your musical performance analogy bore little relation to the process variabilities mentioned in your first post, e.g., grain morphology, I thought we had moved on. In your music analogy, you focused on the role of mistakes, having mentioned "mistake" or "mistakes" four times. Accordingly, I thought it was an appropriate time to turn the conversation back to photography, and, following your lead, mention a mistake in photography, e.g., pouring in the fixer first.
Going forward, would you prefer to discuss process variabilities or music and mistakes?
Last edited:
I guess surgery is performance art too, by those provisions.
Or luck.
Yeah....... we JUST had this scenario regards the word "magic".
Some curmudgeon wanted to make sure that nobody believed in MAGIC.
No such thing, it is all an illusion, embraced by the uneducated masses.
For the Love Of F already.........
not only is developing film and working in the darkroom magical, it is also miraculous.
That's why the pope conferred sainthood on George Eastman and Ansel Adams. The Wiccans, too.Yeah....... we JUST had this scenario regards the word "magic".
Some curmudgeon wanted to make sure that nobody believed in MAGIC.
No such thing, it is all an illusion, embraced by the uneducated masses.
For the Love Of F already.........
not only is developing film and working in the darkroom magical, it is also miraculous.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
'Magic' and 'Luck' are what some of us use to refer to an emotional feeling that is not really definable. Some people derive pleasure and wellbeing from cold hard numbers and calculations.
Each to their own, I don't try to explain why numbers people are that way and I don't expect numbers people to understand the other way.
Each to their own, I don't try to explain why numbers people are that way and I don't expect numbers people to understand the other way.
Well, so far we have four different proffered meanings of luck as it relates to shooting film: 1) process variables, 2) user errors, 3) improvising mistakes, and 4) undefinable emotion feelings. It could be one or more of those things and/or other things not yet mentioned. With such a variety of responses, do you understand why I asked the question? I’m just trying to figure out what the guy in the article meant.
Last edited:
Bingo! And why no young uns would ever join this site, due to the soul sucking fun killing make this as miserable as possible attitudes of some people here.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
*teenage eyeroll*
Polaroid transfers, for an extreme example, had a high degree of unpredictability, nevertheless there were people who used them as a part of their artistic process. Was this about luck, spontaneity, the fact that they looked cool ... who knows and why would it be important to know?
The characteristics of different media engender different approaches: a watercolor or Chinese ink painting can't be made in the layered methodical approach of an Old Master, but watercolorists and Chinese ink painters have a method, it's just a different method.
I personally do not think sloppiness (like mistakes in development) is interesting, but I appreciate that film photography limits the amount of fiddling before and after taking the image in a different way than digital. That's not to say that film is better or worse than digital or anything like that (I use both). It just, for me, results in a different process, which sometimes I enjoy more, and I suspect the quoted person had similar feelings.
The characteristics of different media engender different approaches: a watercolor or Chinese ink painting can't be made in the layered methodical approach of an Old Master, but watercolorists and Chinese ink painters have a method, it's just a different method.
I personally do not think sloppiness (like mistakes in development) is interesting, but I appreciate that film photography limits the amount of fiddling before and after taking the image in a different way than digital. That's not to say that film is better or worse than digital or anything like that (I use both). It just, for me, results in a different process, which sometimes I enjoy more, and I suspect the quoted person had similar feelings.
What is one person's mistake, can be another person's luck, ( and vice versa ).
I refuse to think you really don't get it. You're better than this, and you're arguing for the sake of an argument. Let's try again.
Surgery has nothing to do with an artistic endeavour. 'Success' for a surgery is unequivocally defined: survival of the patient and improvement of whatever condition they had that led them to need and receive surgery. Mistakes in surgery? Also immediately and unequivocally defined.
To go back to my previous example: Designing, building and launching the James Webb Space Telescope? Success is unequivocally defined. Mistakes are clearly defined. Failure is unequivocally defined. All errors and failure paths are carefully analysed and simulated by the engineers and the scientists. If mistakes happen, everybody will agree they were mistakes, because success of this (non-artistic) endeavour was clear to anyone.
Now back to art. An example. Taking a picture of that iconic bit of flat rock in Yosemite. Success is not unequivocally defined. There is no clear sequence of steps that can be taken and that would make everybody agree that it was a success:
-Some people will find that the carefully exposed negatives of Ansel Adams, carefully printed, with the detailed shadows in zone 3 are a success.
-Some people may despise the result of such formalism and instead choose as a successful outcome a picture of the same subject taken with expired Cinestill 800T, loaded in a Canon AE1 with fraying light seals, and developed in beer and cat's piss.
-Some people may despise cat's piss and shadows in zone III and decide the best picture of the iconic bit of flat rock is taken with Delta 3200 pushed to 12000 and exposed in Rodinal 1+1000 stand with bromide drag and surge marks.
To summarise, in art, success means different things to different people and, quite clearly, to different generations. There is no one way to realise your vision, and (some) young film users are finding that film photography allows for more degrees of freedom than digital photography. They find this sense of freedom alluring.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |