brokenglytch
Allowing Ads
This has been an interesting discussion to follow. It's always interesting to hear different perspectives on a matter. That said, I can't help but feel like it's more than a little pretentious and condescending to call anyone that likes to try new films/chemistry mere 'dabblers' or 'hobbyists'. Makes you sound far too aloof like you're talking down from film-mountain deciding who gets to wear the badge of 'serious photographer'. 
I do understand your argument though; being able to consistently generate results without having to put much thought into it can be a valuable thing. When you add variables, you do fundamentally make it harder to achieve consistency, sure. If you 'pick a style' that relies on one combination of film/chemistry to achieve a given look, sure you've restricted yourself to a more limited set of variables to achieve consistency. My point of contention though is that mentality treats photography like you only have a hammer, and every problem is nail. Once you have a fundamental skillset for shot composition, development, and darkroom technique, there is no reason you can't 'dabble' your heart out while still being a serious photographer and trying to build a body of work for exhibition, sale, etc. Properly researched and after a few rolls of testing, a new combination of film/chemistry can be found that might be a much better fit for something in the future. It drives me to understand the underlying chemistry of film and developer; why does it work the way it does, what kind of results can I expect, were my expectations met or were there differences? I don't 'dabble' blindly; I do a lot of research before I try a new combination of film/chemistry/process, and I take notes for how to tweak the process if I'm not satisfied with the results. I do go into a series with some idea of what to expect after gathering as much information as I can. Sometimes results are disappointing, but that happens with 1:1:1 too. Sometimes, though, I end up with results I never could have gotten with 1:1:1. Had I adopted that sort of mentality early, I never would have been able to capture some of my favorite shots of all time because I wouldn't have tried Kodak HIE, TMZ 3200 @ EI 12500, or any of the other 'niche' stuff I'm into.
I see the value in your argument. If someone commissioned me to do a portrait shoot, would I do something crazy and experimental or would I just get a good roll that generates consistent results and do a safe shot with safe chemistry and a safe process? Of course I'd go for the stable results in a shoot like that. Everything has its place, every tool has its use. That's certainly not the end-all be-all of photography though, and for the sake of creating art I feel I would be far too restricted if I adopted some doctrine like 1:1:1 just because some famous old guys did it first. Great that it worked for them, but that's not what works for me. I'm still a serious photographer.
I do understand your argument though; being able to consistently generate results without having to put much thought into it can be a valuable thing. When you add variables, you do fundamentally make it harder to achieve consistency, sure. If you 'pick a style' that relies on one combination of film/chemistry to achieve a given look, sure you've restricted yourself to a more limited set of variables to achieve consistency. My point of contention though is that mentality treats photography like you only have a hammer, and every problem is nail. Once you have a fundamental skillset for shot composition, development, and darkroom technique, there is no reason you can't 'dabble' your heart out while still being a serious photographer and trying to build a body of work for exhibition, sale, etc. Properly researched and after a few rolls of testing, a new combination of film/chemistry can be found that might be a much better fit for something in the future. It drives me to understand the underlying chemistry of film and developer; why does it work the way it does, what kind of results can I expect, were my expectations met or were there differences? I don't 'dabble' blindly; I do a lot of research before I try a new combination of film/chemistry/process, and I take notes for how to tweak the process if I'm not satisfied with the results. I do go into a series with some idea of what to expect after gathering as much information as I can. Sometimes results are disappointing, but that happens with 1:1:1 too. Sometimes, though, I end up with results I never could have gotten with 1:1:1. Had I adopted that sort of mentality early, I never would have been able to capture some of my favorite shots of all time because I wouldn't have tried Kodak HIE, TMZ 3200 @ EI 12500, or any of the other 'niche' stuff I'm into.
I see the value in your argument. If someone commissioned me to do a portrait shoot, would I do something crazy and experimental or would I just get a good roll that generates consistent results and do a safe shot with safe chemistry and a safe process? Of course I'd go for the stable results in a shoot like that. Everything has its place, every tool has its use. That's certainly not the end-all be-all of photography though, and for the sake of creating art I feel I would be far too restricted if I adopted some doctrine like 1:1:1 just because some famous old guys did it first. Great that it worked for them, but that's not what works for me. I'm still a serious photographer.
