...I think that finding your way through the process, without a particular objective, has its own beauty and can open doors that one couldn't have even imagined. In my case, I'm now showing my photographs!
I hadn't thought that I'd be showing my work to more than the professor and I learned that class critiques were standard in all classes. That might have taken me aback but I moved into it and learned how others react to my work in ways I hadn't foreseen, that putting myself out there was a healthy growth point, and that I learned how to talk about not just my work/art but the work/art of others.
Yeah, probably a matter of semantics in the end. But words matter. Especially when you lack them.No. I mean, if you look for a certain end result, it doesn't matter how you arrived there. This implies it doesn't matter if film was involved. Conversely, if it matters that it's about film, somehow, then this implies that the process of significant importance.
Indeed, your mention of "happy accidents" places emphasis on the process, since accidents emerge from the process.
As such, the distinction between process and result seems to me an artificial one. If you will, this might be the most valid reason why film still exists. But it also means that the people who emphasize 'the process' aren't much different from you. In fact, I think you're one of them. Perhaps one of the more vocal ones, at least on this forum.
For the entertainment of whom? And why/how does it entertain?
Please allow me to focus you on the intent of this thread, which is not so much to demonstrate what we are doing (this forum is chock full of examples of just that), but particularly why we're doing it.
With a traditional slide show, the creator determines how long the viewer can gaze at an image. In a museum, gallery, or book, the viewer has the control and can choose to linger.
Thank you, this is the kind of remark I was hoping for. Could you elaborate on how class critiques have functioned as a 'healthy growth point' for you? What mechanisms were/are involved, how have you made the most of it, what was the most useful (giving critique, or receiving it), etc.?
I like this one in particular.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/little-boy.68748/full
Can see I'm not alone.
Dont crop. It's perfect.
I get a little suspicious when people talk about "the process". For some it has become a token word to throw out to when talking about film photography, to justify to themselves and others what they do. Especially when all "the process" involves is throwing a roll of Colorplus or Portra 400 off at the local lab and getting send cruddy scans a few days later.
But I can see you are actually involved in a process. In particular paper printing and the finer details of developing.
To me it is the end result that matters. Or the promise of an eventual end result with the characteristics of the film (and paper) medium.
Dealing with old gear and all the "rites" around development and enlarging and scanning is both charming and tedious at various points. But without the characteristics of the medium, I'd just shoot digital, and in fact probably not even that much of that.
In the same way a potter would probably stop turning pots if all the work turned out to look like grocery store planters, vases and fruit bowls.
As visible as the artefacts of film is to most people, as glaring is the artefacts and deficiencies of digital to me.
IE very heterogeneous treatment/processing of various elements and aspects of a frame, have become the normal for most people and even a sign of good quality.
"Look how sharp it is", when it fact it's the demosaicing algorithm working overtime to manufacture detail that isn't there. While stuff elsewhere in the frame is mush.
Not only is the subject matter entertaining, the whole act of setting up the projector and viewing the silent B&W on a screen provides something diverting or engaging to the viewer. The experience is quite different from watching YouTube on a computer monitor.
With a traditional slide show, the creator determines how long the viewer can gaze at an image. In a museum, gallery, or book, the viewer has the control and can choose to linger.
No problem at all.Hmmm...I wonder if you're speaking about this use of the concept of the process in a particular context, particularly in the professional realm. I say this because I don't see a problem with someone's process involving just throwing some Portra in the camera and getting it developed elsewhere. Artistic expression is such a personal thing and the reasons people do it vary, and they are all valid in my book.
Absolutely, but it’s easy to get stuck in that and tell yourself that is all you ever wanted.In my field, we talk about the three Ps involved in the creative process: the person, the process and the product. The person relates to physiological and psychological make-up; the process looks at how the person approaches media and artistic endeavors and the result is the final art piece. When we look at those three aspects, we can get such a richer picture of who the person is and, more importantly, how to help. So, if a teenager is exploring photography in the way you described it as she is exploring her identity and place in this world (even if she doesn't know that's what she's doing), that's great! If a 60-year old stressed-out CEO is doing the same to reconnect with something she loves, for self-care, that's valid too. And if someone is just throwing that process line around, doesn't that tell you something too? Their processes might not match yours, but that doesn't make them any less genuine.
Not at all. The most important thing we need right now is a realistically priced good enough scanner.It sounds like you have a precise idea of what film photography entails and you place importance on being involved in every step of the process, from shooting to printing. That reflects your values, standards, and your dedication to the medium. That's awesome! Thanks to people like you, some of us can learn about the medium...but then....each person will use it in a way that fits her artistic needs first and foremost.
Thanks for the compliment on that picture. Just today, I printed out three more from that unexpected series I found when reviewing my piles of negatives: how little boys move around the environment (apparently, just walking and in a straight line is physically impossible). That in turn, took me to read about concepts such as wayfaring and how it relates to children's learning...which in turn helps my job and opened another professional opportunity...and the list goes on...and all because one day last summer, I took this box that I don't fully understand, took a walk, saw a little boy running up the steps and took a picture Photography is special and meaningful in different ways to each of us. This road is so much more fun if we support each other along the way...
I found that more than 3-4 seconds per shot is too much and you'll bore your guests silly. I once sat in a demo from a pro photographer who presented his work at our photo club. He was a flower nut and all the shots were closeups of flowers. 90-100 of them. He would explain the setup on each shot, the Genus of the flower, and all sorts of boring stuff. He's lucky I didn't have a revolver with me.
That depends entirely on the photo. If they or their kids are in them they can stare at it for minutes.
Same if the subject grabs them.
Most relatives are bored with your shots and aren't interested in what Paris looked like or a picture of you and your wife in front of the Eiffel Tower. They'd rather you serve them dessert and then let them go home so they can watch Shark Tank on TV.
What relatives? Trip to Paris?
I really have no idea what you mean with that post.
Reads like someone who has never been to an 8mm film festival.
I still have my slide projector. About the only thing with more impact than a 35mm slide show is a 6X7 format slide slow. Both 35mm chrome film and quick reliable E6 processing are easy to find around here. What is no longer available is slide mounting. So you'd have to cut apart the strip and do that yourself. It's not all that hard. Any many of us did it anyway in the past for sake of superior glass slide mounts.
Of course, it depended on whose show it was. When some neighbor invited you over on a hot summer evening for snacks and a 4-hour long presentation of her vacation to a soup factory in Peoria, well....
Back in the 60's, when my older brother was beginning his commercial photography career, he had an older friend who made a handsome living on slide show competitions. I'm not referring to slide show travel or natural history lectures and their ticket sales, which were stilling touring around at the time, but to serious competitions per se. Normally the stock photo houses wanted only 4x5 work. But this particular fellow - a Leica-only guy - was able to win one international competition after another, and thereby gleaned an international reputation which put him at the head of the pack when it came to what kind of 35mm work the stock houses were willing to accept and promote. And stock could pay quite well back then, when something an image was published. Most of that competition stuff was more colorful and catchy than esthetically refined; but that's what magazines wanted.
As far as darkroom printing of slides goes today, now that both Cibachrome and Type R papers are extinct, there are still ways to do it without defaulting to scanning and inkjet printing. Some people are experimenting with reversal RA4 printing. I'm getting very high quality results via precision internegatives made on Portra 160 film, then printing onto RA4 papers normally, although I seldom do it with 35mm images, but prioritize larger 4x5 and 8x10 chrome originals. Not much different in principle, except that with 35mm, I'll take the slide and its unsharp mask (registered together) and enlarge onto 4X5 the internegative, whereas generating the interneg works best by contact when sheet film is involved.
Why would one still choose to do it in the darkroom today??? - well, if you saw the end result side by side to an inkjet, you'd think, "Stinkjet". But it takes quite a bit of experience along with the right equipment to get to that point.
Why would one still choose to do it in the darkroom today???
I still have my slide projector. About the only thing with more impact than a 35mm slide show is a 6X7 format slide slow. Both 35mm chrome film and quick reliable E6 processing are easy to find around here. What is no longer available is slide mounting. So you'd have to cut apart the strip and do that yourself. It's not all that hard. Any many of us did it anyway in the past for sake of superior glass slide mounts.
Of course, it depended on whose show it was. When some neighbor invited you over on a hot summer evening for snacks and a 4-hour long presentation of her vacation to a soup factory in Peoria, well....
Back in the 60's, when my older brother was beginning his commercial photography career, he had an older friend who made a handsome living on slide show competitions. I'm not referring to slide show travel or natural history lectures and their ticket sales, which were stilling touring around at the time, but to serious competitions per se. Normally the stock photo houses wanted only 4x5 work. But this particular fellow - a Leica-only guy - was able to win one international competition after another, and thereby gleaned an international reputation which put him at the head of the pack when it came to what kind of 35mm work the stock houses were willing to accept and promote. And stock could pay quite well back then, when something an image was published. Most of that competition stuff was more colorful and catchy than esthetically refined; but that's what magazines wanted.
As far as darkroom printing of slides goes today, now that both Cibachrome and Type R papers are extinct, there are still ways to do it without defaulting to scanning and inkjet printing. Some people are experimenting with reversal RA4 printing. I'm getting very high quality results via precision internegatives made on Portra 160 film, then printing onto RA4 papers normally, although I seldom do it with 35mm images, but prioritize larger 4x5 and 8x10 chrome originals. Not much different in principle, except that with 35mm, I'll take the slide and its unsharp mask (registered together) and enlarge onto 4X5 the internegative, whereas generating the interneg works best by contact when sheet film is involved.
Why would one still choose to do it in the darkroom today??? - well, if you saw the end result side by side to an inkjet, you'd think, "Stinkjet". But it takes quite a bit of experience along with the right equipment to get to that point.
That's not the question though. We all know what you do with masking etc. for RA4. Again, this thread is not about bragging what great things we're all up to. The forum bursts with that sort of stuff. Some people's posts especially so.
The questions are: why photograph and/or print, and why show it to others (or not)?
What's wrong with people appreciating what you do
No, I keep it too short for that to be necessary.Do you comb your hair?
Good, you're catching on in at least rephrasing a partial question that this thread is about. Now how about taking a stab at a possible answer?What's the point of creating art and hiding it in your closet?
I seemingly take photos to make prints. And I seemingly make prints to stack up and never look at again. It's pretty weird. if you think about it. If I examine the situation too much, I might convince myself it's pointless - so I don't think about it much.
I wouldn't know. Why do you ask?
No, I keep it too short for that to be necessary.
Good, you're catching on in at least rephrasing a partial question that this thread is about. Now how about taking a stab at a possible answer?
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?