Sorry if I sound like a jerk , but does anyone really care ?

[removedacct1]

Yes. I withdrew my own posts when I discovered it had attracted trolls. It's not important.

Funny how bigotry-infused comments "attract trolls".

 

[KN4SMF]

To clarify, I only photograph 2 categories of subject matter: family photography and unpopulated scenics, and consider them both to be worthy of archival treatment. Especially the family work. That way I can be sure that the photos I did back in the early 70's are in dresser drawers and albums everywhere to this day unfaded. I've been called bigot many times. I don't indulge the personalities. Their anger is pervasive and has been for much of my life. Yes, proper technique does matter. Family members die, and I know my pictures are there for posterity for the living. Beyond that, I didn't make distinctions. I shoot what I like. It's called freedom. I would make a very poor media photographer, as I reject the agenda. This thread struck me as forlorn. Thank you.

 

[removed account4]

I've been called bigot many times. I don't indulge the personalities. Their anger is pervasive and has been for much of my life.

sigh
Can you p l e a s e leave politics out of this thread ?????? I don't want to read about and I don't care about your agenda or your political views unless they have to do directly with whether or not you your political views relate to archivally procssing your film and archivally printing your photographs. .. and why it is important to make things last forever if they aren't recording people or places or things or a perspective or technique that may be of some use for learners in the future.

In case you didn't realize ( its clearly spelled out in the site's terms and service statement ) politics is not permitted in the main forum: if you need to talk politics please go to "the soapbox" and talk politics &c there all you want.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

No idea what OP problem is. He cares about how long our photos are going to lasts?
Why is it a problem? Just because few photos are known worldwide?
Is OP taking pictures to be world famous? If so, I understand his concern.
But what it has to do with my pictures?
They won some contests, they were published, they are in private homes on diffrent continents
Some of them were stolen on internet and many of them are for family albums.
What is OP's problem?

 

[jvo]

good question...

i processes film and prints according to instructions, so i guess that's archival.... i want them to last in great shape for as long as i'm around to enjoy and use them!.

having 40 years of negatives and pictures i have wondered will happen when i'm gone - i don't think i'll care. right now i don't want to know what someone else may do with them, they can burn them, i won't.

there, i've said it - you've clarified my thinking! thanks

 

[jvo]

... What is OP's problem?

huh, does he have one?

 

[Ces1um]

What is OP's problem?

Not sure what you mean? Did you read post #1 or just inferring things from the remaining posts?

 

[MattKing]

It appears to me that John (the OP) thinks a lot about this sort of stuff. He has done a lot of work - for pay! - which is specifically aimed at recording and preserving photographically items of historical interest.
I'm guessing that he is conflicted about whether the time, expense, effort and focus on preserving those sorts of photographs is misplaced when considering more everyday photographs.
I've observed that John really likes a lot of different types of photography, including photography that is whimsical, in the moment, and intended to be temporary. That sort of approach can be tremendously freeing, and can lead to joyful creativity.
A story I once read (and hopefully recall correctly):
A couple were in Spain (I think) and walking on the beach. They came across an older man who was drawing the most wonderful creations in the wet sand at the edge of the water. Curves, lines, shapes that flowed and entranced. As they watched, the tide was coming in, and the man's new creations were washing away just minutes after they were created. They were sad, but he was happy.
The man was Pablo Picasso.
I think John finds great value in those sorts of temporary writings in the sand.

 

[pbromaghin]

Here is an example of why you might want to care:
https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/w-j-moore-cirkut-negatives/digitalobject/browse

Oh, my. Hours and hours....

 

[MattKing]

Oh, my. Hours and hours....

You should see the original negatives themselves - a tour of the Vancouver Archives' photographic holdings is a wondrous experience.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

About 25 years ago I made both photos and video (Sony Handycam 8mm - hah!) of the outer suburbs of southwest Portland (around Bull Mountain and Tigard). This area was largely farmland. I made these photos specifically because I knew the area would change drastically in 20 years. Since I enjoyed driving on those roads, I wanted a memory of it. For some reason I feel compelled to preserve the way things look now, knowing they'll change (for the worse, in my opinion). Perhaps these photos will be important to someone or some organization some day.

As for family photos, my aunt and I have inherited them and I seem to be the sole photographer in the family. Although family photos should mean something, those in my family under 50 seem to have no interest in any photo taken more than a week ago.

 

[eddie]

I've observed that John really likes a lot of different types of photography, including photography that is whimsical, in the moment, and intended to be temporary. That sort of approach can be tremendously freeing, and can lead to joyful creativity.

Me, too, though I do aim for archival standards in my own work (I don't think the extra time/effort is much). I admire John's ability to create images which don't last, though. I think it takes a degree of courage I don't have to let go of one's creations so easily...

 

[Meow7]

Here is an example of why you might want to care:
https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/w-j-moore-cirkut-negatives/digitalobject/browse

@MattKing, thanks fo that! I found images of Bloedel, Stewart and Welch by WJ Moore. Those panos are great. My GG was JH Bloedel. And yes, that is the point, I'm worried for the future wit everything digital.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think archival workflow is just good practice and good workflow. I think if you take times to create images that last, you'll respect your work more.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think archival workflow is just good practice. I think if you take times to create images that last, you'll respect your work more.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not sure what you mean? Did you read post #1 or just inferring things from the remaining posts?

I read it twice. Post number one. I think OP has a problem or something which bugs him, but it is not really the problem.

 

[Meow7]

No, I think the problem is more existential.

 

[removed account4]

I read it twice. Post number one. I think OP has a problem or something which bugs him, but it is not really the problem.

NO, I do not have a problem other than I wonder if it is really necessary to archivally process film and archivally print prints that have no social context, no social value, have nothing to do with my family or people I am connected with, they are just photographs I make. If I archivally process the film I have to deal with storage of the processed film and when I am dead someone else has to deal with them. If I archivally process the prints, some big some small some positives, some negatives, they take up more room than film. I have drawers full of prints I haven't looked at in 40 years, and no one else has looked at them either, is there a point to saving "everything"? Is it that important that I leave a film and paper trail of images that most don't understand ( including myself sometimes ) just because "i can" or is it OK to just not waste my efforts on something vain, thinking that someone will eventually care and i have to save every scrap of everything I do, or I am somehow doing something wrong. Is it really that important that I archivally process everything?? I was taught at an early age, ( 13 or 14 ) if you don't archivally process everything, there really is no point .. maybe my question is, is that really the case ? Can't I be just as happy making photographs that don't last 900 years ?

Nope, no real problem, just thinking outloud because I have lots and lots of film and prints and I am wondering whats the point, is the point just to take up space ? or fill "the cloud" with my images so in 200 years someone finds the negatives and prints and files ?

 

[Meow7]

I think the point may be is that you enjoy it, the process. I do and often wonder the same, the same what's the point. But what's the point is a very intricate and complicated issue overall.

 

[Kino]

Well, when you come right down to it, there's no point or value to anything we do UNLESS we assign it some self-determined value. based on whatever rationale others have established or you have devised.

Why process to archival standards? Because I can or want to.

I won't be around to determine the value of what I leave behind, but I'd at least like whomever finds it to think, "Man, this joker really valued his work", as he shovels it into the dumpster...

 

[Truzi]

There is a difference between saving something indefinitely and having made it archival. If it is archival, you can still get rid of it. If it is not archival and you save it, it may or may not deteriorate, but you have still saved it.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I have drawers full of prints I haven't looked at in 40 years, and no one else has looked at them either ...

Schrödinger's cat is enjoying your photos.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I have drawers full of prints I haven't looked at in 40 years, and no one else has looked at them either ...

Seriously, why not look at them? You may find the answer to your original question. At the very least, I think it would prove interesting to look at them now from the perspective of elapsed time and 40 years of experiences.

 

[Saganich]

Sorry if I sound like a jerk but does anyone really care, I mean really care?
I know the big thing about photographers, any kind, is to make photographs that last a long time.
Years, decades or centuries are better. But to be honest does anyone really care about the photos we or most photographers or hobbyists or whatever make ??

I did say SORRY before this and in the title because I am sorry. I know most people enjoy what they are doing and want others to be able to see what they have loved doing and maybe get a kick or be inspired by the things that we might have found interesting, or what some may say " our passion" ..

I know when I am all done I don't think anyone will really care about anything I have done. I think maybe someone might like some of the streetscape or mundane photos i have taken over the years only to "see what xyz " looked like but other than that no one really cares.

Are you OK with that ? and IF SO.. why is everyone so hung up on "archival negatives and archival prints" ?

How does anyone find meaning in the world?

 

[John Koehrer]

Schrödinger's cat is enjoying your photos.

If he hasn't shredded them by now. But we'll never know, will we?