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

[VinceInMT]

...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!

^^^This has been my credo for decades.^^^

I too have messed around in ceramics and some of the stuff actually made it off the wheel and into the kiln but most of my time was spent just playing, feeling the clay in my hands, letting it "speak to me" as to when it was ready to stretch or let me know I've worked it too far. One advantage of that medium is that one can let the "failures" dry out a bit, re-wedge it, and have another go.

Like others has said, showing my work, be it photography or drawing, was not something I ever sought as an endpoint. I was happy to just engage in the process, expirement with different materials, and try out some visual ideas. Most people wouldn't appreciate/understand the abstract or surreal content of some of my work anyway. Then, at age 63, I enrolled in a BFA program because of wanted to expand my drawing and seeing skills. 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.

 

[koraks]

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.

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.?

 

[Helge]

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.

Yeah, probably a matter of semantics in the end. But words matter. Especially when you lack them.
But there is such a thing as words and terms developing into a mini cargo cult. If you say the magic word people "know what you mean".
"It's about the process" is teetering on such a status, in my view, for the aforementioned reasons.

The medium/tool puts and inimitable mark on anything you do with it. Even if you try to work against the tendencies of the medium/tool and/or try to simulate something else.
It's very hard to make a watercolour look like an oilpainting. And in that way "the process" is also a contributor to the final result. Much less so if you are using a point'n shoot and let a lab handle the rest of the fun.
There is stuff you would go about completely differently with film than with digital. Long exposures and low light photography, being obvious examples.

Again, these are hardly new or unique thoughts. Writing them here is just a way of clarifying and syncing the aforementioned "idea clouds"

 

[ic-racer]

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.

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.

 

[VinceInMT]

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

I’ve seen vintage slideshows with two transitioning projectors and synced audio track that was as immediately immersive and compelling as any film. You didn’t feel the need to go back or pause.
I’ve also seen a slideshow that was programmed to cycle randomly where you could hold a slide for a few more seconds.

 

[VinceInMT]

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.?

Class critiques followed specific assignments. For example, perhaps we had just read "Powers of Horror" by Julia Kristeva on the nature of abjection and were creating work, based on our own studio practice, that reflected upon that reading. On the due date we arrive to class early and install our work in the classroom, a space in the gallery, or in one of the hallways. When class starts we take turns being in the hot seat. It starts with the artist handing out an artist statement. The purpose of the statement is to contextualize our work with the assignment and it is also an exercise in writing about art. After the viewers have read the statement and looked at the work, the professor starts the critique. Usually, but not always, we discuss what it is that we see: the imagery itself such as it's a tree, it's a shape, etc. and the technique(s) that was used. This advances into what it might be saying. References to other artists and genres frequently arise. We also look at how well the artist statement ties into the work and into the assignment. Everyone is required to participate and if holding back they will be called on. The artist usually remains silent during this discussion and takes notes. Finally, the artist provides feedback, talking about their intent, their technique, and what they might do going forward.

Keep in mind that this is all in preparation to one's senior capstone, a solo show in the gallery which the student must install themselves and then undergo a faculty review where all the professors in the art department show up at one time, critique the work, and ask questions.

When I first went through these I learned that it is not uncommon for the viewer to take away something completely different from what my concept was. I found that to be enlightening and, as the years went by, thought more about the viewer's response as I planned my work, not to let the viewer drive the concept, but more to make the work less ambiguous if I wanted them to "get" what I was trying to say.

 

[Daniela]

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.

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.

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.

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...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

No problem at all.
I do it often myself.
It’s just not much of a process. At least not much more of a process than pulling a phone from your pocket.
You still get some of the wonderful characteristics of film, but often those automated lab scans are so bad that you only get 75 - 50 percent of goodness.
That could be seen as a choice, willfull ignorance, or just plain naïveté.
Whatever it is, at best it’s not very conductive to the further spread or film use.
It’s expensive (lab scans are. Developing in labs should be supported), and trucker scans, while they have a rough charm, lack long term appeal.

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.

Absolutely, but it’s easy to get stuck in that and tell yourself that is all you ever wanted.

If you put a piano in a classroom, you won’t get Chopin out of thin air with no instructor or enticement pushing them.
At best the kids will find out rudimentary stuff like chopsticks.
At worst they will play around with and take the piano apart to see where in the piano the music is.
The school will say that is what they meant to happen all along.
They will come up with some fancy sounding word pulled from sociology or psychology and tokenfy “the process”.

My point is just that, unless you are really doing something that falls into the common everyday (where the term is most often heard) understanding and definition of the word “process”, like what you and I are doing, the word “process” (even if it’s a strictly correct term for any series of events with an end product), is merely used to prop up and mystify the quite mundane task of loading film and pushing the button.

It might not make the user of the word less genuine overall, we all have our own idiosyncrasies and affectations, but it does muddy the waters to a harmful degree, and creates a bubble of self importance around film photography.

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.

Not at all. The most important thing we need right now is a realistically priced good enough scanner.
A scanner that is not based on 90s tech and one that doesn’t involve assembling and storing twenty different bits and bobs.
8000dpi and a monochrome sensor with RGB backlight with the right peaks and no limitations on format.
Should be doable for around a grand.

The second most important thing is simplifying DR printing. Space is at a premium today, and a darkroom, even a temp one, is very hard to justify for most people.

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 absolutely agree!

 

[Helge]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I don't take their kids on my vacations.

If it's a party, I'll mail them a DVD with the slide show that they can play on their monitor or TV although lately I've had to use memory cards because people don't get DVDs with their computers. They also can use their Playstation to play DVD movies. I imagine X-boxes work too?

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[VinceInMT]

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 was lost with the Shark Tank reference, of course, I am always lost when people reference anything from TV, movies, sports, or royalty, but I intend to stay lost.

8mm filmfests, like their 16mm cousins, are great. I have a relative who got into 8mm (super) and thought he’d make a killing as a wedding guy at the same time Beta/VHS hit the market. He hardly ever used it and then passed away. His widow gave it all to me. It’s an Elmo camera, projector, and editor with some accessories. Fun stuff.

 

[Helge]

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.

What a great post! All of it.
I sure would like to see one of those prints that used Porta 160 as internegative…
It’s an insane amount but effort to go through, but I sure would like details. ;-)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, it's getting to be prohibitively expensive generating the master internegs by 8X10 contact. Fortunately, I already had on hand quite a few 8x10 master duplicate chromes, with all the masking contrast and hue correction tweaks already built in. And 4X5 interneg projects aren't so expensive, since the film involved in only one fourth as large. But the combination of an 8x10 master and its Fujiflex enlargement is a marriage made in heaven!

But it's not something that comes across well on the web. Large high gloss Ciba and Fujiflex prints are difficult to tame on a copy stand without resorting to cross-polarized hot lighting, which shifts and dampens some of the hues. It's also simply impossible to render any realistic impression of the sheer detail and depth over the web. So yes, it's either seeing a real print or it's not. But every now and then I hand someone a test strip I saved, and they get the idea.

"Effort" is relative. People doing dye transfer printing go through a lot more effort; more expense too. But of course, these days I more often print directly from Ektar color negs instead, sometimes contrast masked if needed, but not generally. And that is fairly straightforward. I bought my frozen stash of 8X10 Ektar sheet film back when it was far more affordable than now. But I still need to ration it out intelligently, to make it last. Otherwise, I default to 4X5 Ektar, or more often, the 120 roll film version.

 

[koraks]

Why would one still choose to do it in the darkroom today???

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)?

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I still have two 16x20" prints hanging on my walls down from around thirty made from internegatives from years ago. They were shot on an RB67 6x7. The internegatives the lab used were 4x5" and all printed on R paper. They've faded a little after 30 - 40 years. Don't recall what emulsion they used for the internegatives.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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? We all need that to a certain extent. We're not robots. We all have pride, ego and vanity. Do you comb your hair? It drives us to do better. What's the point of creating art and hiding it in your closet?

 

[koraks]

What's wrong with people appreciating what you do

I wouldn't know. Why do you ask?

Do you comb your hair?

No, I keep it too short for that to be necessary.

What's the point of creating art and hiding it in your closet?

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Don, why not take the better ones, enlarge them, frame them, and give them as a gift when you visit relatives or friends? I'm sure they'd appreciate it and their thank yous will make you feel better, more human. Make someone happy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

There is no point in hiding your work in a closet. See my last post.