Showing your work, slide projection and why you photograph in the first place

[koraks]

I'll cede the floor to Mr. Freud now.

 

[VinceInMT]

….Is that a cynical and reductive view of art? Not at all!…

All well-stated. This reminds me of the writings of Freud on that very topic. Here’s a good summary:

https://www.artshelp.com/art-theory... his concept,paramount to the human condition.

 

[Helge]

I'll cede the floor to Mr. Freud now.

Lévi-Strauss and Marcel Mauss would be more pertinent.

 

[faberryman]

Antropologists and connected sciences pretty much agree that the whole reason art exists in the first place is sexual selection. Therefor showing off your art is deeply intertwined with making and thinking about your own art, whether you are aware of it, and whether you want to admit it.

A common and good strategy is to hold back in showing off your art, until you have attained proficient skill or accumulated a large body of work, to maximise impact.
Anyone who has ever presented a stack of lab prints from a whole roll, or several rolls to someone, will know the sting of having them leaf through them quickly and change the subject. While conversely two or three frames from the same stack will get a much better response.
In other words self criticism, and self curation is very valuable to any artist.

I don't know about the sexual selection part, but I have frequently recommended that you edit your work ruthlessly on the principal that a photographer will be judged by his least successful work. Anyone with hundreds of photos in his Flickr account is doing himself a serious disservice. Less is more.

It reminds me of an essay Minor White wrote in the 1950s as Editor of Aperture on the state of photo contests. He was remarking that most winners of photo contests won once and were never heard from again. He referred to such winning photos as "happy accidents." He advocated that entrants to photo contests be required to submit, as I recall, eight photographs, and the winner selected on the basis of the group of photographs he submitted. The winner would then have all his photographs displayed. I would narrow the criteria to eight related photographs at a minimum. You need to have portfolios, and not simply "best of" collections.

 

[Rick A]

Note from @koraks: This thread was split off from this thread, with the starting quote below referring to this particular post. The discussion below occurred in the context of that thread up to post #39.


Why on earth would that be?
If it's expense, it's often possible to find deals and freezer cleanouts.
Chrome/slide is incomparable. For colour I'd shoot nothing but, if I could.

So, I've read most of this thread, and the one thing that I have an issue with is why you would publically shame someone for stating his decision. koraks made the decision, it doesn't need explanation or reasons (or excuses). If you have a problem with his decision, that is your problem not his. Don't make your problems other peoples problems. Maybe you should have contacted koraks privately and asked the questions, but still he doesn't owe you or anyone else an explanation. Get over yourself.

 

[faberryman]

For example, here's a guy who gave advice today with no photo. How can we believe any of it?

Comparing sharpness between different scanning programs is an exercise in futility. Scan flat without sharpening and then sharpen in post. Then you'll be able to compare scans effectively. Also, if you apply any edits for the scan, you're stuck with the results unless you rescan taking additional setup and time. Scan flat (in RAW) and once forever. Save as tiff. I shoot at 2400 48 bit for color. Edit afterwards and don't replace or delete the original scan file.

It is really a habit with this guy. We're told you can't believe the advice he gave here yesterday without a photo either.

Pop the rings off and clean them off carefully from any dirt. Clean out the groves also where the rings go. Apply a light layer of "o" ring grease to the rings. What i would do is put a dab of grease between my thumbs and forefingers of both hands. Then run the ring through and around spreading the grease completed around just to shine them up with a very light layer. There should not be any globs left on the rings. The grease doesn't waterproof the camera; the rings do. Then carefully reinsert the rings. The grease is just to insure there is good contact between the rubber and metal and they slip into the groove easily and properly. As long as the rings are not damaged, cut, or distorted, you ought to be OK.

Then there's this advice from Monday without a photo from the same guy. How can we believe a word of it? Notice a pattern?

Forget zone focusing. You're complicating things. Just set the focus point to the distance you want in focus to test it first. For the samples you're posting, it seems like they're at infinity. Once everything has been checked out, then you can use zone focusing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For example, here's a guy who gave advice today with no photo. Obviously you can't believe any of it.



It is really a bad habit with this guy. You can't believe the advice he gave here yesterday without a photo either.



White sepulcher?

You're both wrong and silly. First off I have my flicka link at the bottom of every post I do that encompasses scans with two different scanners in three different formats in both color chromes and negative color as well as bw. Everyone's welcome to see what they look like if they have any questions about my scans.

The second part of your post is just being argumentative for arguments sake. I'm explaining how to grease orings, not show results of my photography. Not every post requires pictures. Use common sense.

 

[Helge]

So, I've read most of this thread, and the one thing that I have an issue with is why you would publically shame someone for stating his decision. koraks made the decision, it doesn't need explanation or reasons (or excuses). If you have a problem with his decision, that is your problem not his. Don't make your problems other peoples problems. Maybe you should have contacted koraks privately and asked the questions, but still he doesn't owe you or anyone else an explanation. Get over yourself.

Give me one example where I "publicly shame" Koraks.
You might follow your own signatures advice and actually read the thread.
If being curious of a persons casual mention of something that sounds a bit drastic, then there is an unfathomable amount of unrecognised shaming going on in the world right now.

I was, quite evidently, genuinely curious about a person who has written at length on film,, and who is a mod on here, claiming to not having much of any interest in showing his work to anyone.

Seems to me your post is another case of the topical white knight jousting a straw man he just build, for social points.
Koraks is a grown intelligent man and is well spoken. He can fend for himself and has done so.
What makes you think you should "help" him?

 

[Don_ih]

I'm more inclined to think of art as humanity's natural form of expression, at its most brutally meaningful. And that extends to all forms of art from dance through music and imagery to writing. That you could find sexual drive in there is no surprise, because it expresses the whole of humanity. And the motivation of the artist is simply to be in the most meaningful way.
But, anyway...

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on:
"Thankyou to those who have responded by contributing their reasons for their photography.
Posts that criticize others for what they do or the reasons for their photography are unhelpful, at best, and disruptive and argumentative at worst - no more please.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Ooh, a nice slide conversation, let me chime in and tell you why I keep shooting slides exclusively.

If it's expense, it's often possible to find deals and freezer cleanouts.

I haven't managed to find these + prices for expired slide film are approaching/overshadowing fresh film prices. The market ir broken, therefore I stay away from color. The price of 1x E-6 film + processing (nearing 30€ combined) covers like 70% of Fomapan BW bulk roll. Or some 30% of Aviphot with clear base that's so nice to have in slides. Let that sink in a bit.

Projection is the ultimate way of enjoying film.
You need a good projector and a fast non zoom lens projection lens. Then you are golden.

Agreed, it's a very nice, large-size and high-fidelity experience. If your setup includes always ready projector and a pull-down screen in the living room that pulls down in front of TV for example - golden and on demand! Add some thick curtains/blinds and voila - you can even have that peculiar feeling of experiencing dark rooms in broad daylight - like walking out from a great cinema in 14:00, I dig it.

General advice for people looking to get into projection: [...] Be real self critical when choosing the frames for a show and don’t insist in lingering on every photo for five minutes.

Dark room is a must, as it contributes to contrast and color saturation. It's not hard to do and doesn't add any inconveniences in my experience. But 101% agree of being self critical, of doing your homework and getting rid of weak slides before exposing your fellow humans to it. Doing so will let you and your guests to enjoy tighter, much more coherent performance. Be warned though - people can ask for more, at least in my experience - so I have to make another, and another. And I do them publicly like once in a year, or two years.

Calling other people's preferences 'weird' is rude.

Why? To me it's a completely normal conversation starter. If someone calls me a weirdo, I take it as a compliment, it means that I am free enough to allow myself to be free, to do what I want regardless of the opinions others might hold. And shooting/ projecting slides in 2023 is weird, and I like it. It's weird for majority to shoot film per-se. At least was some years ago. Let alone shooting slide film you cannot work with in darkroom, that weird, dark place, reeking of chemicals.

Not to mention having to dig up the damn thing from storage, set it up, suffer the bad temperament of that nice click-clack mechanism, deal with the unwieldy reflection screen and the life forms that probably call it home by now, and digging through endless boxes with trays full of slides. More power to those who truly enjoy this, let alone on a regular basis, but frankly, I just can't be bothered.

I see. I have solved this with my setup - it's well cared for and at the ready at any given moment. Projector - a remote-controlled Soviet tank paired with German lens - works like a clockwork except some aspects I need to further fix/improve: like proper voltages for microswitch that's embedded in analog stick to control projector focus to a stupidly precise degree. And a belt change/CLA once in a blue moon. It's a machine, must be taken care of for ot to take care of you : )
It sits on a shelf besides 20 or so slide boxes, filling up with sorted and countless times re-sorted slides. Consolidation is the name of the game.

So I realized back then that shooting slide film requires either careful home processing, or a lively scene of slide film shooters that can keep a lab on its feet with sufficient throughput to maintain a stable and high quality level.

Agreed. Or it takes just a lab that offers their services internationally and processes in batches 2-3 times a week to have it all up and running for a decent cost to the customer. As BFS.LV is doing in Latvia, for example.
But, if you have BW lab at home, doing color just requires one additional thing: precise temperature control. Then again - kits are way expensive...

I do this once in a while - but I try to minimize it, as the act of scanning, to me, is at about the same entertainment level as, say, cleaning the upstairs toilet.

Wholeheartedly agreed. It's easily the only thing I dislike about my photography. So I kind of avoid this and then force myself to sit and scan when backlog is getting too huge. But it has a merit or two: the pain of scanning one frame for 7 minutes acts as an additional filter of my slides: is it really that good to do this? No? Ok, in the trash you go! Yes? It's time to clean that toilet then.

There's simply nothing to justify the (frankly, insane) prices of slide film today.

Thats why I learned BW reversal and am happier, more educated and skillful because of that. That's why I avoid E-6 for now, Kodak can do without me.

The only thing worse than a slideshow is a slideshow with music.

Care. The keyword is Care. And Intent. You don't put random music to your slides, you dont put any vocals to your slides, you don't put any traditional music to your slides. If you put it there, you put it with intent. Only then it works.
Take my dark slide collection for example - slides that deal with death in family, depression and self-esteem through psychedelic prism. They would lose significant impact if divorced from Dark Ambient/Ritual music I have curated in a playlist for this very purpose, over the years. Intent. Care.

Why on earth would I want to show people 30 photos I took

Hopefully none does want it. You want to present your best and only your best. Shot a roll of 36 frames and only one is good?
Great! That's the only one you include in your slideshow, keeping an open window to trash it later to improve the overall presentation, raising bar all the time as you intently improve your photography. Respect yourself, respect your guests, respect the art form.

Having 30 presentable images from a roll of 36 is for me an inconceivable miracle. It's great if you can, but I'm thrilled if I get 5 frames that are somewhat interesting out of 36 and at best one that somehow sticks with me.

That's exactly the reality I live in and am completely fine with. What's more - those 5 or 6 slides are subject to further revisions, so only the strongest stay in slide trays ready to be demonstrated at any given time. The rest are discarded in a shoebox, trash, or left here and there as a novelty/reminded to someone - like in belongings exchange cabinets - never to be seen again if not scanned.
Letting go is the beneficial mantra, it's super healthy.

I also find it helps greatly to take some distance from frames I've shot (film or otherwise) and revisit them a couple of weeks/months/years down the line when the thrill of the moment has sufficiently subsided to have a somewhat more clinical look at them.

Hehe, exactly. I often shoot a film in the morning, develop it in the afternoon and mount each worthy slide in the evening... And have the guts to project see what I've done only after some time has passed...

It's a behavior I find weird, but there it is. Sometimes it takes time to appreciate things the best I guess. Sometimes you need to forget to reexperience and improve.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

But... Why am I shooting slides exclusively?
At least couple of reasons:

1) I like Urban Exploration and was piss poor, no income. In one abandoned factory I stumbled upon slides where workers at their machines were portrayed. At another abandonment I found educational slides where among other things bacteriophages and other microbiology stuff was described... Then I bought some slides from somebody - inside: history of Riga, Soviet times... Then I found more and more...

So with time a need for projector arose. I bought it for a sandwich, CLA'd it, enjoyed them slides I've collected, then got bored of them. Soon after my digital point and shoot died, and I found myself with no tool to document my URBEX adventures. Sad day, no money to replace it...
But then I found a camera at a community apartment I was living in, a FED-2 somebody forgot. So I took it and started to learn film photography with no film on hand, just reading through luminous landscape forums all night long for several nights, playing with that cute camera in my hands, visualizing its operation and such new concepts to me like DOF, Hyperfocal distance and Zone system. And when life allowed me, I bought a film for it to enjoy, shooting negatives and getting pics back from the lab.
So now I had a camera, a projector and a screen I got from another place soon to be torn down. And reading the praises for slide film in luminous landscape, I asked myself - is slide film still made today? A quick search later I found a local store, and the rest is history... Especially after learning BW reversal


2) It's a combination of expenses and what's available for me today, only slightly more money on me today.
To build a darkroom is expensive, to have a decent enlarger is expensive. To have to buy paper, its chemicals, filters, baths and other Darkroom accessories - it's expensive just to be able to put pics on paper the way I'd like.
With slides, however, I can avoid these expenses altogether, meantime enjoying Superior quality via projection, projecting bigger than any paper could hold.

And now - keeping shooting slides - do I have to ask myself this question: do I need a darkroom? Because slides and darkroom don't mix quite well and to continue to do what I like, but in darkroom setting - would require a copy film, additional work and expenses just to be able to convert my slides to paper the optical way.

Therefore I just shoot and scan slides, and hate scanning process.


3) Visual material is visual and it must be seen by its very nature. I feel weird about people that shoot, but don't show, it begs a logical question: why then and what keeps you from showing pics from a place we went to together? It's like baking a bread and not giving it to anyone else - OK thing to do, but weird. It's like - I don't know, if I stumbled upon a dark problem I need to help with, to encourage said photographer.
Hmmm, is one a "Photographer" if nobody else experiences their output?

If you feel confident enough about the quality and your composition skills are decent, I want to see it from a curiosity standpoint alone.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Oh, and what's more - moving the setup for projection events is painful. Especially optically: the 45mm projection lens at home that works so wonderfully in a small attic room won't cut it for a bigger room, longer lens is needed. But I don't have sufficient quality long lens, so I must live with a knowledge that I'm not representing my slides at the best quality available.
Neither Leica, nor Soviet ~100mm plastic projection lenses have nothing on that 45mm

So I tend to leave my setup projector at home and take Leica to show off my work. And again - I must live with the knowledge, that I'm presenting weaker using Leica - due to the lack of precise focus control (extremely needed for 45mm close projection lens) + poorer lens performance.

Its a nice balancing act.

 

[Helge]

Smaller projection is almost always preferable IMO because there isn’t that much light to begin with.
Still far bigger than any print anyone is likely to make.
Really shows off the gobsmacking resolution of Velvia, Provia and Ektachrome.
I have a 35mm 1.9 on my Kodak carousel. Virtually all I ever use. It allows you to project in a not perfectly dark room too.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ivo and Helge, I've been shooting chromes for over 60 years and often made slide shows before that I projected. When I moved to NJ ten years ago, I found my projector was broken and decided to scan all my slides and make slide shows for my 4K TV which I find better than slide projection. I no longer project.

The beauty is the shows are stored in the TV through its USB jack on a memory card ready to show in an instant. No setup time. It has music, sometimes related and sometime not, depending on what mode I was in when I created the show. Scans were done on an Epson V600 until a couple of years ago when I upgraded to a V850. I used Lightroom, Elements, and Premiere Elements for editing and creating the video slide show.

Vacations are fun to set up. I've learned to keep each shot down to display most for only 3-4 seconds. More than that and you'll put people to sleep. Lively music related to the vacation country or area travelled helps. I also throw in short video clips between the various stills to add diversity. Adding titles and credits make it seem more professional.

Once created you can make DVDs or dump on memory cards and give to family. I have downloaded some to YouTube for others to view on their computers, cellphones, or TVs. The links on my YouTube sites are: (Some are 2K some are 4K. Set your resolution appropriately). YouTube allows privacy settings so you can store your videos there but they are only accessible to family and friends you've given the private link to.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

The Scuba Diving show were originally Ektachromes from 35 years ago. The music was romantic. I was in one of those moods. The rest of the shows were digitally captured.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGsByP1B3q1EG68f4Yr2AhQ

The Fire Brigade one is a short BW of 35mm Tmax 400. The rest are digital captured. Regency Mens Club Fire Academy has a mix of stills and videos and the music is apropos.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Ivo and Helge, I've been shooting chromes for over 60 years and often made slide shows before that I projected. When I moved to NJ ten years ago, I found my projector was broken and decided to scan all my slides and make slide shows for my 4K TV which I find better than slide projection. I no longer project.

Yeah, we got it. But if you ask me - it's a far different beast, no comparison to be made. A unnecessarily complicated downgrade if you ask me, because scanning takes away, because TV's aren't transparency projectors, they take away too. IMO what you have is a workaround that strives to be something it's not - with all due respect and no critique intended. I, for example, am not interested doing so.
I, however, am interested in fully analog main course, pushing its limits. Scanning is secondary to me - just to have examples and presence online.

Maybe allow me to make a following suggestion: replace that dead projector of yours and make a comparison. Rent or borrow if for curiosity sake
It's a completely different realm.

And if I have a choice - to watch my photos on Flickr on my 55" OLED, or switch on my slide projector and roll down a 90"screen in front of said TV - I'll 100% times do the latter. No competition.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah, we got it. But if you ask me - it's a far different beast, no comparison to be made. A unnecessarily complicated downgrade if you ask me, because scanning takes away, because TV's aren't transparency projectors, they take away too. IMO what you have is a workaround that strives to be something it's not - with all due respect and no critique intended. I, for example, am not interested doing so.
I, however, am interested in fully analog main course, pushing its limits. Scanning is secondary to me - just to have examples and presence online.

Maybe allow me to make a following suggestion: replace that dead projector of yours and make a comparison. Rent or borrow if for curiosity sake
It's a completely different realm.

And if I have a choice - to watch my photos on Flickr on my 55" OLED, or switch on my slide projector and roll down a 90"screen in front of said TV - I'll 100% times do the latter. No competition.

But I'm not a stranger to projection. I've projected for 50 years so I know what it's like. I just moved on especially since my vacations are not shot on film nor are parties and affairs. So digital slide shows allow me to cover the whole spectrum of scanned film and digital. I'm trying to explain options to people who might be interested in other methods especially if they're scanning their film already. They can also do both showing slide shows to people who visit and provide digital shows to others who are distant.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Also, since most of my "fine art" photography is shot on medium and large format, there's no simple way to project other than by scanning and presenting digitally.

 

[MattKing]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ The Scuba Diving show were originally Ektachromes from 35 years ago. The music was romantic. I was in one of those moods. The rest of the shows were digitally captured.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGsByP1B3q1EG68f4Yr2AhQ The Fire Brigade one is a short BW of 35mm Tmax 400. The rest are digital captured. Regency Mens Club Fire Academy has a mix of stills and videos and the music is apropos.

Alan,
Why don't you put the link to these slide shows in your signature - that way you won't have to post them every time you refer to them?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan,
Why don't you put the link to these slide shows in your signature - that way you won't have to post them every time you refer to them?

Done.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

But I'm not a stranger to projection. I've projected for 50 years so I know what it's like.

Memory is a faulty thing, side by side comparison will answer it all - it seems to me that you haven't done this comparison in the same room, from the same source: one projeced original, other the digitized incarnation

 

[Helge]

Memory is a faulty thing, side by side comparison will answer it all - it seems to me that you haven't done this comparison in the same room, from the same source: one projeced original, other the digitized incarnation

Absolutely agree.
Absolute brightness per square cm aside (which is relative to the eye to a degree anyway, since it adjusts readily), good film projection kills any other display technology for resolution, contrast, colours/tonality and last but not least in image stability.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with a side by side comparison.

Even OLED is left in the dust.
4K projectors are not even good enough to enter the finals.
A very good CRT might compare with regards to contrast and colours, but not resolution or stability.

But of course, as always, the keyword is good.
If the slide is not well exposed, the room not dark enough the projector not setup and adjusted right, then it’s all for naught.
But these things are not hard.
They have historically perhaps not been a priority for the family dad eager to show his boring shots from the recent vacation, giving the medium a bad rap.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Memory is a faulty thing, side by side comparison will answer it all - it seems to me that you haven't done this comparison in the same room, from the same source: one projeced original, other the digitized incarnation

Absolutely agree.
Absolute brightness per square cm aside (which is relative to the eye to a degree anyway, since they adjust readily), good film projection kills any other display technology for resolution, contrast, colours/tonality and last but not least in image stability.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with a side by side comparison.

Even OLED is left in the dust.
4K projectors are not even good enough to enter the finals.
A very good CRT might compare with regards to contrast and colours, but not resolution or stability.

But of course, as always, the keyword is good.
If the slide is not well exposed, the room not dark enough the projector not setup and adjusted right, then it’s all for naught.
But these things are not hard.
They have historically perhaps not been a priority for the family dad eager to show his boring shots from the recent vacation, giving the medium a bad rap.

Have you both done side by side comparisons on 75" 4K TV vs projection? Have you made digital slide shows with background music, titles, credits,? Have you sent your work electronically to family so they could see?

I at least know what traditional slide projection looks like having done it for over 50 years. How much experience do you have with digital slide shows to make a claim which is better?

 

[Helge]

Have you both done side by side comparisons on 75" 4K TV vs projection? Have you made digital slide shows with background music, titles, credits,? Have you sent your work electronically to family so they could see?

I at least know what traditional slide projection looks like having done it for over 50 years. How much experience do you have with digital slide shows to make a claim which is better?

I have. Both OLED, DLP, LCD and 4K laser projector.
The light intensity is more on these. But not contrast.
And certainly not image quality.

Convenience and shareability is not the question here (at least not to me) and is frankly not an issue I worry too much about with film or slide shows.

If I want to share a bunch of photos I just shoot them with my phone or a DSLR and send them off.

I am part of the show. If I am not there to curate and guide it, there is no show.

I want to try doing crossfades with two projectors at some point, it looks wicked but takes a lot of planning. But it can look absolutely fantastic with a bit of imagination.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have. Both OLED, DLP, LCD and 4K laser projector.
The light intensity is more on these. But not contrast.
And certainly not image quality.

Convenience and shareability is not the question here (at least not to me) and is frankly not an issue I wonder too much about with film or slide shows.

If I want to share a bunch of photos I just shoot them with my phone or a DSLR and send them off.

I am part of the show. If I am not there to curate and guide it, there is no show.

I want to try doing crossfades with two projectors at some point, it looks wicked but takes a lot of planning. But it can look absolutely fantastic with a bit of imagination.

Of course we all have differing needs and desires. So I;m not knocking projection. It;s a great way to show but I also shoot medium and large format. What then? Also, convenience and shareability are real plusses. I never used a digital laser projector so I can't comment on that. But TV as well as cellphone, and monitors emit light brightening the picture unlike reflected displays from projection. Light intensity is more and contrast is as well depending on how you adjust the displays. There are settings on TV's where you can switch to predetermined contrast and other color and light settings with one click for a slide show. I don't bother because the show is bright and contrasty enough from my standard TV viewing. I will say that a good monitor displays the shows sharper although with smaller screen size than a 75" TV. With new 8K tv I might have to start editing for that size although you probably won't notice a difference to 4K.

Crossfades (transitions) are standard when I do my video slide shows. Did you look at any of mine on YouTube linked below. They all have trasnitions and fades and there are dozens of different types that can make the show fun to watch. See picture below of Adobe Premiere Elements video program that was part of a slide show I did for my grandson's first birthday. Note all the differing transitions available on the right.