Mentioning Traditional Photography On The Web

[bjorke]

The online photographic community is a very depressing place at times...

...mostly because people worry far, far too much on easily-measured and quantified formal characteristics like chemistry, MTF charts, ratings competitions, market share, DMax, brand names, and pretty much nil about seeing, about the qualities of light, about the forces that move one to make photographs other than pre-programmed response to consumer culture.

 

[jjstafford]

...mostly because people worry far, far too much on easily-measured and quantified formal characteristics like chemistry, MTF charts, ratings competitions, market share, DMax, brand names, and pretty much nil about seeing, about the qualities of light, about the forces that move one to make photographs other than pre-programmed response to consumer culture.

Indeed, and the 'net fosters such worries. People get there because it is something they can do while sitting on their butt. Making pictures obviates such silly obsessions.

A great picture is rarely technically perfect.

 

[jjstafford]

You all are missing one very important point.

When photography came about and it was a threat to paint per say you, but you could still get the material or make it and even today you can get it quite easily, as well as canvas, brushes, etc... So I am sick of hearing well painters felt the same way or well digital is a new way. BS.

So be sick. Puke your guts out. Or think.

Digital is being forced down our throats and we have no choice. They are taking away our media forcing us to use this digital crap or not shoot at all. How is that fair?

The universe is not fair when you lead with your expectations. You have to make your own way. There is no conspiracy to force anything down your throat. You can close your mouth.

Jobo is closing up their US operations, Kodak is no longer making papers, films are being discontinued, etc... We will have no media left to produce or master our craft with.

Despair or open your eyes. There will always be film and paper. Believe it or not, but somehow I suspect that's not your real lament.

So stop feeding the BS and believing it. Digital is destroying the world of photographic art. Soon we will have nothing left to make images with. Sure we can coat papers but once film is gone it is gone.

Total shit.

Drown in your tears.

If anyone is the egoist elitists it is the digital camp, we are not forcing our media down their throats but they are forcing it down ours and making it to where we have no choice.

Close your mouth. Open your mind!

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

A great picture is rarely technically perfect.

Many a fine photo has been printed due to friends looking through the rejects or that last frame which was "wasted" at the end of the day.

 

[kjsphoto]

I can still buy oils, brushes, canvases and it is not going away, while on the other hand film is drying up as well as the supplies.

Kodak is a reality, Jobo is a reality, films becoming less and less is a reality, Paper selection are becoming less and less that is a reality and personally having to use less superior paper and film if any in the future is just the a joke. It is like photography is going backwards in time.

This is a forced change as if you cannot get your materials anymore what you going to do? I didn’t ask them to stop making XYZ paper, film or chemicals then are doing it therefore forcing you to find yet another means of producing to the point to where you just are going to have a hell of a time finding it if at all.

So I am not drowning in tears I am sick of the hype. Yes it is getting to me and yes I am sick of it an NO I WILL NOT shut my mouth because it is being force feed by the digital corporate world.

Conspiracy? I didn’t say that. That is words you are putting in my mouth. It is about profit margins and digital yields, so yes they re going to force it down your throat, like it or not.

Think about it. Digital equals more money for computers, storage, ink, printers, monitors, software, etc… It is a win win for the corporations but a lose lose for the traditional artist.

That is fact not Conspiracy and if they had it their way film would be gone tomorrow without a trace.

That is they way it is so yes open YOUR eyes and think of the implication are of just sitting here SHUTTING YOUR MOUTH.

You like traditional way of producing art? Speak up or get what you deserve. I am going to go down in a fight and try to keep it alive. At least I am one that will try to educate and tell people while many others will sit back and do nothing while it disappears.

Open your eyes and look at what digital has done to the art world. Now you have people selling digital oil painting, digital water color, etc.. What kind of shit is this? There is no value in this type of art; the tradition is gone as this is now mass production. Anyone can do anything with a computer, a artist does wonders with their hands and they are not everyone. Really open you mind and see the whole picture instead of what just affects you. I am talking art as a whole not just on the photographic level here.

People are lazy and want instant gratification so for them use the lazy digital ways but don’t knock me for wanting to keep tradition and make art with my hands.

Thanks.

 

[jjstafford]

I can still buy oils, brushes, canvases and it is not going away, while on the other hand film is drying up as well as the supplies.
[...]
Thanks.

Relax. It is early in the transition. I'm still not sure what you are really complaining about - that the public doesn't really care about film photography? Guess what - IT NEVER DID! The public took whatever was there. They never gave a whit how the pictures were produced. Just coincidentally you were using film and liked it.

Nobody is making you change. Nobody is making the market change. It just happens, always has, and always will.

Find what you like and leave the rest.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Relax. It is early in the transition. I'm still not sure what you are really complaining about - that the public doesn't really care about film photography? Guess what - IT NEVER DID! The public took whatever was there. They never gave a whit how the pictures were produced. Just coincidentally you were using film and liked it.

Very true. The business of cameras and film has always been about getting the most cameras into consumers hands with the least cost and most profit for the company. It has never been about quality. And lets face it, 99.9% of the images created with film or pixels is utter drivel. the vast majority of people don't care about making good images, they just want a record of a
certain point in time.

When the day comes that film and paper become a non-entitiy to snapshooters, we will see a real re-evaluation of traditional photography. The remaining practioners and their art will be valued for skill, knowledge, craft and vision. With digital how do you legitamize something as art when most 5 year olds can acheive pretty stunning results just with enough trial and error on a computer keyboard and photoshop?

Meanwhile there will remain a cadre of dedicated craftsman and artists, schooled in the arcane sciences of photo-chemical processes, and the manipulation of light to produce a unique artwork. As the world of imaging becomes more and more automated, those who yearn for real creativity will search out these masters of the "old ways" to learn and photograph and print.

Remember, please use terms such as pixelography, digital imaging, computer aided imaging, etc when refering to digital.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Reply

Kevin-let's see:you can still buy AZO-there is about a five year supply available. POP paper is still made. J+C is kicking butt with their films. Last time I looked Forte was in stock as well as Ilford, Fotospeed, Oriental and a few others. Kodak hasn't given a damn about "art" photographers for a very long time. Never really did. When the labs started to automate back in the day they quickly discontinued the best papers. This could work out to be very fortunate for the right manufacturer. Whoever can/will survive the shakeout stands to make money in the end. Not every corporation has to show billions in profit to the shareholders.
Funny to me as I posted for sale 13 boxes of Agfa Portiga and not one response. That's 1300 sheets of paper and for "all" the fine art printers no interest at all. Which is fine by me as I'm using it myself along with freezers full of graded Oriental and Forte VC paper.
Being an artist is more than going down to the local photo store to buy 1 box of paper every few months. Invest in some deep freezers; buy what you need or think you might need irregardless of the monetary part. YOUR MATERIALS STATE WHO YOU ARE AS AN ARTIST. They also become easier to work with as you are not adjusting to the "new" stuff out there. Time to readjust your thinking. Even though materials are not going to disappear they will get alot more expensive. In five years the price of sheetfilm could double;same with paper. Just as recently as last year I sold 2000 sheets of 8x10 Tri-x that I had bought in the mid-nineties-and you what? I didn't lose a dime as the price had gone up about 40%. I still have 5x7 TMY which is the best for platinum printing-in the freezer. I'm not going to be looking out for materials to be able to do MY artwork..
Just a thought, Peter

 

[kjsphoto]

Still missign the point so I wont even bother.

Just take a few step back and take a look at the big picture then maybe and only then will you see what I am talking about.

Thanks for the response though but not all of us are fortunate enough to stock up.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Dear Sean,
Also I had some 'strange' reactions when I was talking about 'classic' photography.
I was called a reactioniar, conservative, sivergrain mad, old man.
What stroke me is that digatal technology has not changed a lot to phography.
In art history I was told that oilpaint in (zinc) tubes changed artpainting that much, it gave the inprissionists the posibility to leave the artstudio behind ant take the canvas out in the 'wildernis'. Yes oilpaint in tubes made impressionism possible, and this was a true revolution back in the time! Imagin, just a small part of the medium was neded to accomplish this.
Digatalization is a lot bigger change and photography as sutch has not undergo a major changing.
I think that changings mus really change, in the intersting way.
Digital technology has changed a lot in cinéma, a whole new 'film-language' came up, but not in photography.
I wonder why!
Philippe
p.s. sorry for my pigeon English!

 

[jjstafford]

Still missign the point so I wont even bother.
[...]

I looked at your home page and should have done so sooner. If I take them right, your pictures and your work speaks to your point, so you are truly communicating. I'd call that quite a success for a real photographer such as yourself.

It seems that you are living in the stressfull place in which pixelography (TM, Mr. Chinn) works best for your making a living as a sports photographer, while you work with film to make serene statements. You have my deepest respect for that.

 

[jjstafford]

Dear Sean,
Also I had some 'strange' reactions when I was talking about 'classic' photography.
I was called a reactioniar, conservative, sivergrain mad, old man.
[...]
I wonder why!
Philippe
p.s. sorry for my pigeon English!

Your English is better than some of ours!

Pixelographers (TM: Chinn) who speak harshly of traditional work are fearfull. That's all there is to it. No person who is confident, at peace with his medium, would make the effort to be antagonistic. Personally, I don't understand what their fear is; perhaps they understand that somehow, certain film photographers with elementary simple equipment unhindered with electric-everything, and not bound to the chain of constant expensive updates still manage to make better pictures.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I have to thank Jorge for first using the term pixelography on APUG sometime ago. It was when I saw that term the first time that I started to think about how to encourage people to think of digital and traditional as distinct and different mediums.

 

[B-3]

Pixelographers (TM: Chinn) who speak harshly of traditional work are fearfull. That's all there is to it. No person who is confident, at peace with his medium, would make the effort to be antagonistic.

Same goes for photographers who speak harshly of digital image-making. They appear fearful and insecure. I see plenty of antagonism on both sides.

 

[Bighead]

that the public doesn't really care about film photography? Guess what - IT NEVER DID!

Sadly, I'd have to agree... Every consumer photographer I know, still using film, does so out of ignorance to the digital world. They are overwhlemed with the idea of a new medium, so they keep using their consumer grade SLR's... Also, they all shoot full program mode. None of them know what it is they are actually doing. They don;t care about film photography, they just want their vacation photos...

I have always said that the consumer market was always going to dictate what was readily available. Its up the the "fine art" folks to stick to their guns. As long as their are users, there will be someone producing a product to make a profit... Instead of multi billion dollar companies, smaller specialized companies will be making the products... There may actually be more variety. If everyone of you chemical nerds (no offense) here started making paper and films to your liking, for sale, we'd have a variety of options, instead of the "medium gray" that even Ilford and Kodak have been selling us for years....

It is going to be a transition. When its all said and done, we may never have a shop to shop from. We may never have a lab but the products, IMO, will always be there.

 

[jjstafford]

Same goes for photographers who speak harshly of digital image-making. They appear fearful and insecure. I see plenty of antagonism on both sides.

Certainly, and I've been one who has occasionally stridently corrected certain digital fanatics, but that was due to my profound dislike of willful ignorance, which is really no excuse. I'm still growing.

 

[B-3]

Certainly, and I've been one who has occasionally stridently corrected certain digital fanatics, but that was due to my profound dislike of willful ignorance, which is really no excuse. I'm still growing.

And I still have yet to find THE group of photographers (or group of people in general, for that matter) who hold the monopoly on ignorance.... seems to be in abundance, no matter where you look.

 

[Andy K]

Slightly off topic for this thread, but I wanted to share this and did not want to start yet another D vs A thread!

Yesterday I was on the local seafront, shooting some PAN F in my Olympus OM-1 of a hundred year old statue of Queen Victoria (see attachment). At one point I was on an observation deck overlooking the promenade, along with several other shooters, of varying age, all using DSLRs (I saw Canon 300s and Nikon D70s,I think they were students from the town college). Several times as I was there I was asked by tourists to take snapshots of them with their point and shoots, which I happily obliged.
After the fifth time and noticing I was the only one being asked to do this, I politely asked the person why they had asked me to take the snap for them when there were at least ten other photographers there.
Their reply? "We noticed you were using an old film camera so we figured you knew what you were doing!"

I did not know what to say!

 

[Jorge]

Yep, I get that too all the time while I am metering for my shots, it drives me nuts........nice pic BTW...

 

[eric]

Slightly off topic for this thread, but I wanted to share this and did not want to start yet another D vs A thread!

Really OT! What is she POINTING to?

 

[Jorge]

Really OT! What is she POINTING to?

She is pointing at the babarians at the gate.....

 

[roteague]

On the other hand, my landlady's granddaughter left a couple of days ago for Brazil (she's 18). She took 27 roll of film and a point and shoot camera; she said she didn't want to shoot a digital camera. I'm going to help her find a good film camera when she gets home and teach her how to use it.

 

[Andy K]

Really OT! What is she POINTING to?

Yeah. Sorry about that!

She's pointing South, and has been for a long time, here's a photograph from 1904. I don't know what she's pointing at. The angle of the arm is slightly out to the right of her body, which you can see in this second of my shots (with badly blown highlights, marble in sunlight!), which suggests a more sweeping motion rather than pointing at something. I'll have to do some research.
Don't you just love local history?

 

[Helen B]

I thought that she used to point to the toilets. Then she was moved. Something to do with having to have the spinach cleaned off her teeth. I know how she feels.

 

[Lee Shively]

I just realized Sean's original post was from 2002.

That was about the time I started becoming a little dubious of the digital thing. I dropped my plans for a DSLR and, instead, bought a couple of Leica rangefinders and started stocking up on Ilford HP5+.

Nothing much has changed in attitudes. It's still "them and us", sorry to say.