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

[Sirius Glass]

Well for my digital Southwest album I'd suggest Home on the Range.

Not the Streets of Laredo?

 

[Helge]

I don't think they are rare per se. I think the ones that offer the same consistent quality as back around 2000 are very rare.

Never had a problem with the quality of my local labs in Copenhagen and Frederiksberg where I live, and not in comparison with my dads slide that include Kodachrome and Ektachrome either.
Neither was the lab in NYC and Berlin, I had a few rolls develop at, a problem.
E6 is pretty simple to get right if you have an automatic processor and/or a routine down.
But then again, I weren't there to appreciate the consistency pre 2000.
Within reason I have a hard time seeing what super high consistency within a few degrees is useful for? Unless you are doing a photoshoot over numerous rolls and it's absolutely imperative that the colours are exactly the same.
Or you are doing scientific work.

I can't take that comment seriously, I'm sorry. I don't carry a slide projector on my back whenever I go out. I don't keep it in the living room, nor does anyone else I know (not even back when we shot slides all the time). I can't hand the projector to my niece to have a quick peek at a single image and it doesn't make sense to set it all up for just that, but I can easily hand her my phone or even just send the photo to her so she can show her husband as well. There's so many levels at which the comparison doesn't make sense.

I meant in kind, and in the style in which you present the photos. If I have thirty or so photos I want to show someone, we usually sit down with the phone in shade or low light and go through the photos with a pause of few seconds for taking each in, going back to some of the favourites.
Having the projector readily available is of course again a question of priority. It's not worse or better than any other kind if projector or non everyday use kind of equipment, people still find a place for.
Then there is small projectors with manual slide load, like the Prado 150, that can throw a small image on a wall. And of course there is slide viewers, where most of them are crap, but a few with a big magnifier and decent backlight, that are actually a great way of viewing a few frames anywhere.

 

[Helge]

I wouldn't freeze exposed rolls. I never do and mail them from New Jersey across the country to California for developing. You're chancing getting condensation on the emulsion. Also, there's really no more danger of expiring in the mail than when you leave it in your camera for a few days to take more shots.

For some it might be months or sometimes even years before they have accumulated enough film to make the shipping costs not be a significant part (or in the case of developing E6 at home, use the developer up in one go), or just got around to it.
It's perfectly possible to freeze film, exposed or not, without condensation, as long as you minimise the amount of air and air exchange in the bag. Use double Ikea or similar ziplock bags, suck out the air with a straw before closing completely.
Hoard silica desiccant bags and put one in each bag. Dry the bags on 60C° in the oven after a few uses.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Never had a problem with the quality of my local labs in Copenhagen and Frederiksberg where I live, and not in comparison with my dads slide that include Kodachrome and Ektachrome either.
Neither was the lab in NYC and Berlin, I had a few rolls develop at, a problem.
E6 is pretty simple to get right if you have an automatic processor and/or a routine down.
But then again, I weren't there to appreciate the consistency pre 2000.
Within reason I have a hard time seeing what super high consistency within a few degrees is useful for? Unless you are doing a photoshoot over numerous rolls and it's absolutely imperative that the colours are exactly the same.
Or you are doing scientific work.

I meant in kind, and in the style in which you present the photos. If I have thirty or so photos I want to show someone, we usually sit down with the phone in shade or low light and go through the photos with a pause of few seconds for taking each in, going back to some of the favourites.
Having the projector readily available is of course again a question of priority. It's not worse or better than any other kind if projector or non everyday use kind of equipment, people still find a place for.
Then there is small projectors with manual slide load, like the Prado 150, that can throw a small image on wall. And of course there is slide viewers, where most of them are crap, but a few with a big magnifier and decent backlight that are actually a great way of viewing a few frames anywhere.

so you're in Copenhagen? I actually stopped off there on a layover.

 

[koraks]

If I have thirty or so photos I want to show someone

Yeah, I guess we differ in this respect as well. The only person I might bore with this number of photos would be my fiancee, and only because I enjoyed printing them and she doesn't like it if she comes across a big stack of prints she has never seen. So I put them on the table, she quickly flips through them, maybe selects two or three that she likes and that's it. Why on earth would I want to show people 30 photos I took? Or 10, for that matter?

 

[Helge]

Yeah, I guess we differ in this respect as well. The only person I might bore with this number of photos would be my fiancee, and only because I enjoyed printing them and she doesn't like it if she comes across a big stack of prints she has never seen. So I put them on the table, she quickly flips through them, maybe selects two or three that she likes and that's it. Why on earth would I want to show people 30 photos I took? Or 10, for that matter?

Because they are interesting? You shot their party, someone (themselves?) something or somewhere they love?
Thirty is a “roll” of 135, minus a few obvious duds.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Do a Blurb book of your photos. Then gift it to your girlfriend or leave it on your coffee table for them and others to thumb through.

 

[koraks]

Because they are interesting? You shot their party, someone (themselves?) something or somewhere they love?
Thirty is a “roll” of 135, minus a few obvious duds.

To me, the photos I make are sometimes interesting at the moment I make them - which is to say, during exposure and afterwards during printing. Those are virtually without exceptions photos that the people around me don't 'get'. They just see another door/wall/dirty corner/blob of unidentifiable color/etc. This is totally fine by me btw. Since I don't have to sell or prove anything with my photography, I can follow my own tastes.

I don't shoot parties or social gatherings in general. I did, in the past, but grew weary of it since they don't offer photographic opportunities that I find even remotely interesting or relevant. For the occasional "hey look we had a great time together" shot, or "look at that cool critter/plant we had in the backyard the other day" and other shots long the lines of "we are still alive and experiencing things", a phone is so much easier. If I don't think it's worthwhile printing it, I don't push the button. That cuts out 95% of the crap.

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.

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. That helps bringing down the 5 promising shots on a roll to about 0.1 or so - which I find a perfectly acceptable number. I might consider showing those 0.1 shots per roll to someone if the opportunity presented itself.

A couple of months ago, my fiancee motivated (pressured) me to organize an exhibition of my 'work'. She went as far as to arrange a venue for it. I turned the idea over in my head a couple of times. After a few months, she said "about the show, you're not going to do it, are you?" I said no, explained why, and we left it at that.

If you think I'm being some kind of 'artiste' in saying these things, keep in mind that probably around 90% of the exposures are make are along the obvious, drab and beaten-to-death lines as the slides I showed earlier in this thread. They might be 'nice' images, but they're not very interesting. I would appreciate it if people wouldn't waste my time making me look at stuff like that (if I want, I go on Google Maps, click a place that interests me and flip through the photos - much of the time, I find Streetview more interesting than the images people post on there, Instagram, Flickr etc.), so I don't waste theirs in the same way. It's a basic courtesy, really.

 

[Helge]

To me, the photos I make are sometimes interesting at the moment I make them - which is to say, during exposure and afterwards during printing. Those are virtually without exceptions photos that the people around me don't 'get'. They just see another door/wall/dirty corner/blob of unidentifiable color/etc. This is totally fine by me btw. Since I don't have to sell or prove anything with my photography, I can follow my own tastes.

I don't shoot parties or social gatherings in general. I did, in the past, but grew weary of it since they don't offer photographic opportunities that I find even remotely interesting or relevant. For the occasional "hey look we had a great time together" shot, or "look at that cool critter/plant we had in the backyard the other day" and other shots long the lines of "we are still alive and experiencing things", a phone is so much easier. If I don't think it's worthwhile printing it, I don't push the button. That cuts out 95% of the crap.

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.

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. That helps bringing down the 5 promising shots on a roll to about 0.1 or so - which I find a perfectly acceptable number. I might consider showing those 0.1 shots per roll to someone if the opportunity presented itself.

A couple of months ago, my fiancee motivated (pressured) me to organize an exhibition of my 'work'. She went as far as to arrange a venue for it. I turned the idea over in my head a couple of times. After a few months, she said "about the show, you're not going to do it, are you?" I said no, explained why, and we left it at that.

If you think I'm being some kind of 'artiste' in saying these things, keep in mind that probably around 90% of the exposures are make are along the obvious, drab and beaten-to-death lines as the slides I showed earlier in this thread. They might be 'nice' images, but they're not very interesting. I would appreciate it if people wouldn't waste my time making me look at stuff like that (if I want, I go on Google Maps, click a place that interests me and flip through the photos - much of the time, I find Streetview more interesting than the images people post on there, Instagram, Flickr etc.), so I don't waste theirs in the same way. It's a basic courtesy, really.

You should allow yourself to be mundane without getting swamped in it.
Out of mundanity greatness can spring.
And it’s the only way to hone your skills.

But of course there is educated mundanity and the regular mundane.
A well as there is art and “art”. IE something Dall E could have made.

You can’t really train film photography with a phone. It’s like practicing firefighting with a gardening hose in your backyard. No stakes and not the same thing at all.

You are exactly right in that frames should be allowed to rest for later coolheaded evaluation.
Garry Winogrand famously had around 10.000 rolls he hadn’t really gone through. 2500 of which were undeveloped. He let them “marinade” as he put it.
While that number is neither realistic nor desirable it is worth thinking about.

Of course the level of interest in a given set of photos be it 8 or 36, depends largely on the subject.
I have no trouble getting the right people to appreciate my photos if I curate and present them right. That’s really all I hope for with these type of shots.

If film is too precious for the relatively mundane it’s too precious to anything. That’s how I see it.

 

[koraks]

You should allow yourself to be mundane without getting swamped in it.
Out of mundanity greatness can spring.
And it’s the only way to hone your skills.

That's very nicely formulated (apart from the imperative), but to me, it does not convey a clear message, and insofar it does, I don't relate to it.

You can’t really train film photography with a phone.

I was pointing out a phone is simply better suited for certain things in my view. Film doesn't even come into the question in those areas. I have no interest in training 'film photography' (which is an unfortunately confused construct to begin with that suggests skewed priorities IMO, to the point of being oxymoronic), nor have I implied that a phone would be a suitable tool to that end. Come to think of it, it's as good a tool as any, but that was not what I was suggesting.

I have no trouble getting the right people to appreciate my photos if I curate and present them right.

That's very nice, I imagine. But again, I can't relate - I have no interest in 'getting people to appreciate my photos'.

I think our thoughts about photography are quite fundamentally different. Which I already suspected when you inquired about me not shooting slide film. If we had had somewhat similar views, you wouldn't have asked.

 

[Helge]

That's very nicely formulated, but to me, it does not convey a clear message, and insofar it does, I don't relate to it.

Well it could boil down or be expanded to: “Don’t be too precious with what you shoot, or you won’t be good when what you’ve been waiting for comes along”. And “you are not honing you picture making faculty/artistic sense in general, even for making arranged stills, landscape or portraiture if you don't practice finding the interesting in the mundane”.

I was pointing out a phone is simply better suited for certain things in my view. Film doesn't even come into the question in those areas. I have no interest in training 'film photography' (which is an unfortunately confused construct to begin with that suggests skewed priorities IMO, to the point of being oxymoronic), nor have I implied that a phone would be a suitable tool to that end. Come to think of it, it's as good a tool as any, but that was not what I was suggesting.

Film has different requirements like a more measured approach and more intent in every aspect, like DoF, speed of film, etc.
It’s like the difference between playing an old arcade game and playing a “press here to win” game on a phone.
There is such a thing as film photography. The medium is the message.

That's very nice, I imagine. But again, I can't relate - I have no interest in 'getting people to appreciate my photos'.

I think our thoughts about photography are quite fundamentally different. Which I already suspected when you inquired about me not shooting slide film. If we had had somewhat similar views, you wouldn't have asked.

I’m beginning to get the feeling that is a priority to establish?
I don't think I am any closer to understanding what actually drives your photography, but I also think that maybe you are not really interested in or enjoy talking about it, so let's leave it at that.

 

[koraks]

Well it could boil down or be expanded to: “Don’t be too precious with what you shoot, or you won’t be good when what you’ve been waiting for comes along”. And “you are not honing you picture making faculty/artistic sense in general, even for making arranged stills, landscape or portraiture if you don't practice finding the interesting in the mundane”.

I understand those things. What makes you think I don't do this already?
I just don't have the need to share this with others.

Do you see many professional musicians practicing scales on a stage before an audience?

Film has different requirements like a more measured approach and more intent in every aspect, like DoF, speed of film, etc.
It’s like the difference between playing an old arcade game and playing a “press here to win” game on a phone.

I understand. I've shot quite a bit of film. And digital. The technical differences are quite obvious to me.

As to photography: there are may ways to 'get the job done'. For me, 'the job' is not necessarily to expose film. It's something I enjoy, but it's not an end in itself. To a large extent, it's a distraction that keeps me from becoming better at photography. The distraction in itself has intrinsic value, for me, so I don't mind awfully. Can't do everything in life.

I don't think I am any closer to understanding what actually drives your photography

I don't think so either. Yet, I've already said it. You just keep saying what drives you and then formulating that as advice to me. I appreciate the thoughts, but if that's your way of understanding what drives me (or anyone else), I think you're now starting to realize it doesn't work that way.

Mind you, I don't expect you to understand (or want to understand) what drives me in photography. It's perfectly OK with me if you don't care.

 

[Helge]

I understand those things. What makes you think I don't do this already?

Well, you kind of asked for a clearer message. I have no doubt you have been through numerous iterations of hermeneutic circle with all these aspects. Any seasoned photographer has. But A, you often have to sync your cloud of common knowledge to communicate clearly, sometimes ad tedium and B, other people are probably reading this.

I just don't have the need to share this with others.

No one is asking you to. But if they did, would you comply?

Do you see many professional musicians practicing scales on a stage before an audience?

As a matter of fact, yes. And there is other venues than the stage.
Practicing scales is also not a good analogy for shooting ducks and flowers.
A closer one would be general practice or just to jam or play classics for the fun of it.

I understand. I've shot quite a bit of film. And digital. The technical differences are quite obvious to me.

Well, I am absolutely certain they are, reading your blog and posts.

I don't think so either. Yet, I've already said it. You just keep saying what drives you and then formulating that as advice to me. I appreciate the thoughts, but if that's your way of understanding what drives me (or anyone else), I think you're now starting to realize it doesn't work that way.

Mind you, I don't expect you to understand (or want to understand) what drives me in photography. It's perfectly OK with me if you don't care.

Well I'm up to several posts, so of course I care. You're a mod here, you make interesting posts, and I enjoy reading your blog. You obviously have a lot vested and care about this realm.
It's obvious you care a great deal about optical printing, as any film photographer should to some degree. I am only now dipping my toe into RA4 and your blog posts has been a great help.
I'd say it's pretty natural to be interested in what you have to say on not scanning, and especially from an artistic perspective.
Scanning a single frame is not that super different from printing it, in time used and time to learn to do a passable job at it.
And at least the output can look remarkably the same, if the scan was of high enough quality. Certainly not much different/better than a pure digital shot printed.
The devil is of course in the detail, and both processes have their edges and drawback, but still... They share more characteristics than separate them.

You indicate/imply that you mainly care about singular artistic shots. If you want, I'd like to hear about your thinking and method when choosing a motif or subject.
I know sharing photos is not always popular or possible for a number of good reasons, I completely get that.
But that doesn't preclude us talking about personal aesthetics and their implications, at least in general and passingly
(I do realise I'm hopelessly OT. Or am I?).

 

[koraks]

But A, you often have to sync your cloud of common knowledge to communicate clearly, sometimes ad tedium and B, other people are probably reading this.

Well, concerning A, I'm not sure if I 'have' to do that. I see why you'd say that, but I hope you are starting to see the kind of point I'm trying to make here. There's a lot of things we do because we assume they're supposed to be done. Some of those things are in my view not as necessary as we believe them to be.

But if they did, would you comply?

That depends on the motivation. See my earlier account of the exhibition I didn't do. Then again, in other instances, I will show my fiancee the frames I printed of our holiday to Sicily, for instance. But that doesn't have anything to do with photography, let alone film photography.

As a matter of fact, yes. And there is other venues than the stage.

Practicing scales, dude. Come on. No, they don't do that in a filled auditorium.

Practicing scales is also not a good analogy for shooting ducks and flowers.

Very much so, in my view. Well, I don't photograph ducks and flowers for the most part. Sometimes flowers. No ducks. But still, when I do, it's 99% practicing scales.

I'd say it's pretty natural to be interested in what you have to say on not scanning

To clarify, I've never made any argument about what other people should do, and whether scanning per se is a 'good' thing to do or not. In case it wasn't perfectly clear before: I don't scan (much) because I don't like to. I find it tedious and overall not worth the time invested. There's not much more to it than that. If the next person comes along and they find it fun to do and/or they prefer inkjet printing (for instance), their choice will be completely different from mine.

Scanning a single frame is not that super different from printing it, in time used and time to learn to do a passable job at it.

I guess it depends on skill. For me, it's not the case. Comparing scanning a single frame, just like that, out of the blue, vs. optically printing one: the latter takes a truckload more time. Even within the context of a multiple-frame session, the optical prints take me a lot more time to get done, especially B&W. With color RA4, I can pump out OK prints once I've dialed the filtering in for a particular role, and provided I did a somewhat reasonable job metering my scenes. In general, I find optical printing a bigger challenge than digital production. Keep in mind that this may also mean that my digital image are overall sub-par. I'm sure they are, if I compare what I get (especially from film-originated images scanned into digital) to what digital-only photographers produce. This, btw, is also a reason why I prefer to optically print film-based images and use digital originals for digital outputs. Much of the time associated with scanning, I spend on basically force-fitting some film-based data into a digital shoe, and it never quite fits as nicely as a digital original does. YMMV, and all that. It's all subjective experience.

The devil is of course in the detail

About 95% of the time and effort spent is in the detail, so you can't really ignore them if you do a side by side comparison.

You indicate/imply that you mainly care about singular artistic shots.

Not necessarily singular; series as well. But yeah, singular in many instances, although recurring themes or motifs emerge. I guess that happens with everyone.

If you want, I'd like to hear about your thinking and method when choosing a motif or subject.

I'm not sure what there is to say. My photography is opportunistic and mostly lacks clear direction. It's hedonistic if you get down to it. It's not very artistic, either, so in that sense, it doesn't quite fit the shoe you proposed, although I find it a pretty type of shoe. Heck, some of it is anything but hedonistic and probably vacuous, cheap and probably even exploitative (although with for me clear reasons).

Frankly, saying much about it feels overly pretentious. I'm not an artist and I don't consider myself a photographer as such. I just happen to like making photos and prints. That doesn't make a photographer anymore than enjoying the act of squeezing paint onto a palette makes a painter. I could wax lyrical on motifs, aesthetics, philosophical underpinnings and whatnot, but it would be like a 12-year old explaining the science behind a Superman movie. At best enthusiastic, and perhaps amusing, but not something I'd recommend listening to unless you have a remarkably high tolerance for embarrassment.

(I do realise I'm hopelessly OT. Or am I?).

Yes, but so am I. That doesn't make things any better, but I'll split our conversation off of this thread into a new one. That's also the only thing me being a mod has to do with this conversation; please keep that in mind. The janitor is just a person like anyone else; they just hold a broom some of the time while you're talking to them. The broom doesn't participate in the talk, and it sure has heck isn't some kind of amulet or talisman that instills a particular sense of meaning to any message. It's just a stick with a bristle on it.

 

[Daniela]

@koraks @Helge
This is an interesting conversation! I think it would indeed be interesting to have a thread to explore further how we all have different motivations to do photography and how we all approach the creative process in different ways.

 

[koraks]

I think it would indeed be interesting to have a thread to explore further how we all have different motivations to do photography and how we all approach the creative process in different ways.

Take it away, by all means! As far as I'm concerned, this is a suitable place.
If you want to do it elsewhere, that's also OK with me; just open a thread. But I think this one would fit the bill just as well.

 

[Daniela]

Take it away, by all means! As far as I'm concerned, this is a suitable place.
If you want to do it elsewhere, that's also OK with me; just open a thread. But I think this one would fit the bill just as well.

Keeping it going here is just fine, I think I misunderstood you in a previous post.

Either way, I find this an interesting conversation. To touch on just one of the topics you guys did, it is only recently that I've began feeling like I want to show my photographs (the reason I bombard the gallery here). Over the years, people have looked at me puzzled when I say I do photography but don't care to show it. I spend every Monday in a darkroom and do my own mysterious thing in their eyes....It's all about enjoying the process. The same has happened with pottery. I go to pottery classes and sometimes make things, sometimes I play with clay...and it makes teachers very uncomfortable At some point, they always approach and suggest that I make a bowl or something. 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!

 

[Helge]

Keeping it going here is just fine, I think I misunderstood you in a previous post.

Either way, I find this an interesting conversation. To touch on just one of the topics you guys did, it is only recently that I've began feeling like I want to show my photographs (the reason I bombard the gallery here). Over the years, people have looked at me puzzled when I say I do photography but don't care to show it. I spend every Monday in a darkroom and do my own mysterious thing in their eyes....It's all about enjoying the process. The same has happened with pottery. I go to pottery classes and sometimes make things, sometimes I play with clay...and it makes teachers very uncomfortable At some point, they always approach and suggest that I make a bowl or something. 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 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.

 

[Chan Tran]

I do project my slides and enjoy viewing them that way but I never show them to anyone. But the majority of people don't shoot film and don't project slides and don't care about slides. We wouldn't be in the situation we are innow (few films to choose, high cost of film, high cost of processing) if the majority of the people like to shoot and project slides.

 

[koraks]

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.

To me it is the end result that matters.

Do you recognize the tension between these statements?

That's one thing that bothers me. Mind you, I'm not saying you're doing it wrong etc. I think I understand why you're doing what you're doing. But whenever I try to reason out such lines of thought, I hit fundamental inconsistenties, and they in turn force me to re-assess why I'm doing all this. The answers I can come up with often don't really involve an 'end result', let alone what others think of it (and hence, no more need to show others what I'm doing).

 

[Helge]

Do you recognize the tension between these statements?

No I don’t.
You mean “end result” is cliché?
As with most artistic endeavors, I have a rough idea in my head about what to expect, but am very open to happy accidents.

 

[koraks]

You mean “end result” is cliché?

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.

 

[ic-racer]

I shows sides ... kind of. That is, I show many of them in rapid succession.

I project all my 8mm film for entertainment and edit it all by splicing.

 

[koraks]

I project all my 8mm film for entertainment

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.

 

[Prest_400]

The why is interesting.

As of quality/quantity I consider mainly a medium format shooter and at 8 exposures a roll it's not that much I have done. Then the intention is to have a high rate of keepers and good candidates to print.
B&W I do the process myself in a community darkroom. For color it goes hybrid. There are dichroic enlargers and there is RA4 but it seems quite cumbersome whereas hybrid seems effective enough and direct.

Slides have been largely a reason why I shoot film but ironically I don't do them much. The reason why I picked 6x9 as a format; to just look at them on the light table. Again, an irony here is that I currently prefer the malleability of Color negative as well as me not shooting ISO 100 that often handheld. But to this, I mainly do B&W because of the color logistics of shipping film around plus lab. I can do Color here as well but it's either batch up or not local labs

I think only in 2020 pre price increases I didn't care about the film budget, before and after that point it has always been relatively expensive. But that has made me again very selective in shooting. My first project was shooting a few rolls of Kodachrome back when it was discontinued and tried to encapsulate what I saw back then in those exposures. The large majority of those are slides in a box now but it's nice to get back to them every so often and with the thoughts here I should sometime get them properly digitised and printed.

As to the what why and maybe relevant to the discussion is travel photography. I like travel but mainly struggle to bring over my medium format and go bonkers shooting around. An exception is that I am from Spain but live in Sweden so in extended home trips I bring them. CT scanners are scheduled to be installed next year which adds a complication to the logistics and we shall see how it will be in the future.