Should we start a new photographic movement?

[Vaughn]

This process requires power, ink, and the printer has to actually work 100% (most develop issues in a short amount of time).

Then there is the issue of archiveability, or the lack thereof.

Use the neg once, then toss it. Make another when you need it or want to improve it. The print is as archival as the printing processs used. If one uses a digital negative to make a carbon print, and if one has not done it well, one can have a lousy-looking print that will last centuries unchanged...for the worse.

Agreed -- printers need special care and techniques to use them. Not unlike most cameras.

 

[VinceInMT]

Scan the prints. I think too many photographers don't post their pictures. How can you have a hobby and forum in photography when so many don't share their pictures with each other? It's like a bunch of food connoisseurs getting together once a month to discuss eating well and skipping lunch.

I brought that up in the past and was accused of “bullying.”

 

[Sirius Glass]

I brought that up in the past and was accused of “bullying.”

+1

It is a personal choice like using a GND.

 

[aparat]

You don't understand that, for the vast majority of people (including the vast majority of film-users), digital methods are not inferior, nor are they compromising anything. Digital technology has been enabling. But one of the things it did quite finally was kill film use in industry. No more bulky process cameras, no more miles of lith film, no more need for photos shot on transparency. No more shuffling physical copy from one place to another and back again for changes. All of that tedium was swept away - along with all the skills to make it happen - and along with the vast majority of materials involved.
Then there's the wedding photographer, whose clients want all their photos to have a particular look and definitely want to be able to post their photos on Facebook or whatever. What wedding photographer will get away with handing a print package, no scans of any kind available, to their client?
Then there are all the people who just take pictures. You know what? They don't want prints. They want to send photos in messages, post them on social media, email them to relatives, and maybe get a photo book printed once a year - but otherwise, they're fine just having them on their phone or computer. They don't think much about it.

And then we're left with the idea of a "movement" of just film users, not using any digital methods whatsoever. How are they going to show each other what they're doing?-- meet in person? How many of us on this thread have met in person? Andrew and Matt. There's no channel available for communicating in a purely non-digital way, anymore - no one will do it.

The non-personal use of film will never be resurrected. Be happy so many people are using it the way they are. Kodak and Ilford and Foma and Adox and Fuji surely are very happy so many people are shooting film, scanning it, and posting the photos online.

I agree completely with your statement. When digital photography became affordable in the early 2000s, I jumped in and bought a Nikon D70. I learned a lot about photography by using that camera. You are absolutely right that digital technology has had an enabling effect on countless photographers. And I also agree that, in order to communicate in an online community, we need to be able to digitize our photographs to share them with others. My Nikon D70 died a long time ago. I sold my Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED scanner a long time ago. The only way for me to digitize my pictures is with my cellphone. It's not ideal, but it works well enough for me. However, it would not work for many others.

I am delighted that a lot of young people are flocking to film. Will they stay there? Most probably will not. I think we need a super inexpensive, super easy way to digitize film. Currently, it's way too difficult and way too expensive. Some of you are going to say: "just send it to a lab," and that may work for some, but film processing and scanning costs add up really quickly. Young people cannot afford to pay a couple of hundreds of dollars for a film processing and scanning service once a month or so. I hope somebody will make film digitizing workflow cheap and easy. When I say easy, I mean virtually foolproof, as in "I feed a piece of film through a scanner and beautiful pictures show up on my screen." Maybe then a conversation about a new movement might be relevant. Until then, I don't see it.

 

[Don_ih]

I hope somebody will make film digitizing workflow cheap and easy.

While I wouldn't call it a proper "workflow", there are multiple devices being sold that hold your film and, in conjunction with a phone application and a diffused backlight, give you a positive on your phone. It's all handheld, of course, but it is a cheap and easy solution for a lot of people.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I brought that up in the past and was accused of “bullying.”

No it's not bullying. It's our opinion.

+1

It is a personal choice like using a GND.

Of course, it's personal. But, it just seems that our hobby being a visual hobby, should be discussed visually. Leaving aside aesthetic appreciation, when someone suggests a method of improving our photography for example, and then doesn't show samples of that method, why would anyone waste time trying to use a new strategy when they can't see the results? When I buy a new shirt, I like to see what it looks like. What's so complicated?

 

[aparat]

While I wouldn't call it a proper "workflow", there are multiple devices being sold that hold your film and, in conjunction with a phone application and a diffused backlight, give you a positive on your phone. It's all handheld, of course, but it is a cheap and easy solution for a lot of people.

Yes, I've seen them. They are okay for someone like myself, who doesn't mind a bit of fiddling to get them to work, but for a young photographer, with limited time and attention, those are still far from ideal. And if we include the necessary software (e.g., Negative Lab Pro + Adobe Lightroom, Vuescan, etc.), the process becomes that much more expensive and complicated. A dedicated, ambitious, stubborn film photographer will overcome all of these obstacles, but newcomers, who would presumably constitute the majority of a new photographic "movement," would probably not.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are a lot of cheap dedicated scanners to get beginners started.

Photo Scanners, Film Scanners & 35mm Film Scanner | B&H

See B&H's vast selection of Photo Scanners from top brands like Pacific Image, Wolverine Data, Kodak and Braun. Explore our unbeatable selection.

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[Petrochemist]

If I feel a movement coming on I head for the loo!

Others might try categorising my photography into pigeon holes but I don't think that works well overall.
Can you have a 'movement' for trying anything that takes your fancy? One day it will be infra red, another visual or even UV, then there's shallow DOF/pinhole, long exposures/freezing motion, digital/film, adapted/native, fisheye/ultra telephoto... I've tried them all, I will revisit them repeatedly & even combine them.

 

[Vaughn]

Technique, equipment, and fancy tricks -- a movement they do not make. Got to be a lot deeper than that.

 

[VinceInMT]

….when someone suggests a method of improving our photography for example, and then doesn't show samples of that method, why would anyone waste time trying to use a new strategy when they can't see the results?

It would like going to a vegetarian for advise on How to BBQ.

What I found that really improves the quality of content here is the “Ignore” feature.

 

[VinceInMT]

Technique, equipment, and fancy tricks -- a movement they do not make. Got to be a lot deeper than that.

Should the finished work define the movement rather than the process used to create it? I fully understand that “process” and an interest in it does have an impact of how an audience reacts to the work. I am thinking of Jackson Pollack as an example.

 

[jtk]

It would like going to a vegetarian for advise on How to BBQ.

What I found that really improves the quality of content here is the “Ignore” feature.

Ignorance is bliss for some. Others enjoy playing in complexity.

 

[koraks]

when someone suggests a method of improving our photography for example, and then doesn't show samples of that method, why would anyone waste time trying to use a new strategy when they can't see the results?

Some people require examples because they either need some form of credentials in order to be willing to listen to somebody, or they need a visual aid for them to learn. This 'debate' is apparently more about the former. Important to note is that this principle is not a universal one. There are many people willing and able to learn from someone even if that person has no proven track record, or the form of the proof is not what they'd expect or prefer it to be.

I don't think you're wrong, necessarily. But what you say is not, and should not, be a universal truth or presented a such.

It's valid to ask someone to show their work if they explain something. It's equally valid for that person to refuse that request.

Tough cookie, deal with it.

For clarity, I'm chiming in on this because this part of the debate is starting lean towards categorically disqualifying people on the basis of their choice to display their work. That is perpendicular to the inclusivity that's essential to this place and as such, it worries me.

 

[jtk]

If someone cannot (or chooses not to) express herself himself clearly and concisely here, s/he will not be treated as well by the audience as will someone who chooses to express him/herself clearly and consisely. Inclusivity is often a good thing, however there are reasonable editorial limits.

 

[faberryman]

For clarity, I'm chiming in on this because this part of the debate is starting lean towards categorically disqualifying people on the basis of their choice to display their work. That is perpendicular to the inclusivity that's essential to this place and as such, it worries me.

I wish some people wouldn't show their work, at least as frequently as they do. Maybe people ought to be limited to uploading only one image per day, not to exceed three images per thread.

 

[jtk]

Technique, equipment, and fancy tricks -- a movement they do not make. Got to be a lot deeper than that.

For Vaughn (and for anybody who appreciates his posts, as I do) ...I strongly suggest reading anything by Craig Childs. It's better than photographic. Random example of Craig Childs' work: House of Rain.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Should the finished work define the movement rather than the process used to create it? I fully understand that “process” and an interest in it does have an impact of how an audience reacts to the work. I am thinking of Jackson Pollack as an example.

Pollock's example actually illustrates well the opposite, i.e., that the process is not necessarily the movement. The movement Pollock belonged to was abstract expressionism, along with artists with very different ways of expression than he, such as Rothko and De Kooning.

The drip technique that Pollock developed, his "action painting", belongs to him as a means of expression. They are not the movement. What they initiated was not a movement but imitators, which isn't the same.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Some people require examples because they either need some form of credentials in order to be willing to listen to somebody, or they need a visual aid for them to learn. This 'debate' is apparently more about the former. Important to note is that this principle is not a universal one. There are many people willing and able to learn from someone even if that person has no proven track record, or the form of the proof is not what they'd expect or prefer it to be.

I don't think you're wrong, necessarily. But what you say is not, and should not, be a universal truth or presented a such.

It's valid to ask someone to show their work if they explain something. It's equally valid for that person to refuse that request.

Tough cookie, deal with it.

For clarity, I'm chiming in on this because this part of the debate is starting lean towards categorically disqualifying people on the basis of their choice to display their work. That is perpendicular to the inclusivity that's essential to this place and as such, it worries me.

I don't think I was twisting anyone's arm. However, if they want their advice to have more power, influence, and acceptance, post a picture that shows the point they're making or the suggested procedure they're recommending. People like to kick the tires before they buy the car and this is a photo forum, after all.

 

[Cholentpot]

I agree completely with your statement. When digital photography became affordable in the early 2000s, I jumped in and bought a Nikon D70. I learned a lot about photography by using that camera. You are absolutely right that digital technology has had an enabling effect on countless photographers. And I also agree that, in order to communicate in an online community, we need to be able to digitize our photographs to share them with others. My Nikon D70 died a long time ago. I sold my Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED scanner a long time ago. The only way for me to digitize my pictures is with my cellphone. It's not ideal, but it works well enough for me. However, it would not work for many others.

I am delighted that a lot of young people are flocking to film. Will they stay there? Most probably will not. I think we need a super inexpensive, super easy way to digitize film. Currently, it's way too difficult and way too expensive. Some of you are going to say: "just send it to a lab," and that may work for some, but film processing and scanning costs add up really quickly. Young people cannot afford to pay a couple of hundreds of dollars for a film processing and scanning service once a month or so. I hope somebody will make film digitizing workflow cheap and easy. When I say easy, I mean virtually foolproof, as in "I feed a piece of film through a scanner and beautiful pictures show up on my screen." Maybe then a conversation about a new movement might be relevant. Until then, I don't see it.

I do agree with this. Currently the bar for entry is limited at the scanning. It's complicated and time consuming. Young photographers want and expect their film to be every bit as hi rez as their digital shots with minimum fuss. Feed film, shots come out on computer or phone or device color correct and clean. The ability to manipulate should be second.

 

[Vaughn]

Should the finished work define the movement rather than the process used to create it? I fully understand that “process” and an interest in it does have an impact of how an audience reacts to the work. I am thinking of Jackson Pollack as an example.

I prefer not to separate the two. Process and print are peas in a pod. Both help to carry the image from the original seeing to the viewer of the print.

But certainly no lasting artistic movement is going to begun by a bunch of older men wanting the past to return. Perhaps what the OP needs is just to have some major projects be done on film that catch the public attention with both process and results, rather than hope for a movement.

 

[jtk]

For Vaughn (and for anybody who appreciates his posts, as I do) ...I strongly suggest reading anything by Craig Childs. It's better than photographic. Random example of Craig Childs' work: House of Rain.

I'm trying to say that photographers don't write well. In general. They tend to be windbags.

I don't like the word "should" but I do think Photrio should limit posts to two or three lines, everybody included.

 

[VinceInMT]

But certainly no lasting artistic movement is going to begun by a bunch of older men wanting the past to return.

One of the truest statements I have ever seen on this site. We had our shot and we either made or mark or didn’t. That some of us are stilling hanging on is only a credit to the medical establishment since the system is more than ready to clear us out of the gene pool.

 

[Vaughn]

Like 'Slow Food", I do "Slow Art". Like the 90+ year old master celloist said when asked why he still practices everyday, "I think I am beginning to see some improvement." (very loosely quoted), I hope to slowly improve until I do no longer need to, or cannot. Then I shall just have fun.

That is one thing about being involved in education...one will always leave a mark. One just hopes they are mostly positive.

 

[Arthurwg]

Pollock's example actually illustrates well the opposite, i.e., that the process is not necessarily the movement. The movement Pollock belonged to was abstract expressionism, along with artists with very different ways of expression than he, such as Rothko and De Kooning.

The drip technique that Pollock developed, his "action painting", belongs to him as a means of expression. They are not the movement. What they initiated was not a movement but imitators, which isn't the same.

Interesting. I've always thought that Pollock arrived at his style as a way of overcoming his obvious deficits. Yes, he had an overwhelming desire to become an "artist" but he lacked any obvious talent or ability. He could not draw, and his early work was abysmal. Still, his perseverance, accompanied by copious amounts of alcohol, ended in stardom. The only photographer I can think of that might be equivalent is Miroslav Tichy.