The Modern Camera and the Dilution of Effort

[blansky]

Well we have both found our own best choice. Even though the choices are different I somehow feel this is a memorial day..or is it a Memorial Day?

Mr McBlane appreciated is your taking the time to amuse an old man. Thank you Michael.

The pleasure was all mine.

I would add that "our best choices" do change. I shot 35mm when I started out, then moved to 2 1/4 (hasselblad). Since 2 1/4 is such a great compromise, I really haven't ever left it and my F4 sits in a camera bag unused and I gave away a N8008. I finally was using the F4 for vacation stuff but that has been replaced by Mamiya 7II. (damn I love bigger negs)

I have 4x5 and dabble in that, Linhof Bi kardan and a Littman. But I photograph a lot of kids and I can't seem to make it work, or can't get out of the comfort zone of 2 1/4.

I now have a digital Nikon d200 and am playing with that. So our tools do change as do we.



Michael

 

[Claire Senft]

Well I have a Mamiya RZ67 with 50 4.5W, 75mm 3.5L, 140 Macro and 210 Apo. They sit on the shelf gathering dust. To each their own.

 

[amam]

WE HAVE SOMETHING TO GAIN by taking our time.

I don't believe we do. While I was entertained by the essay written and understand where it comes from, I think that someone with any type of camera can easily compose and take time with the making of a photograph. A big glass negative and albumen prints do not make automatically a great photograph. If someone without a photographer's eye did the same organ grinder dance as described earlier in the essay the photographs produced would have been exactly the same. If the Mr Jackson used a brownie, exactly the same, iPhone exactly the same. While I understand the heart of the matter is it really that important? in 100 or even 12 years my deliciously boring machine gunned exposures will look just as interesting to cousin George who has a 20x30 blow up on his wall as the same frame made with my 14x17 wet plate to sensitized paper prints. Time heals all wounds and makes things that people who believe that just because it was made big, or through a harder means its better not as better. There are many boring, uninteresting, poorly composed images that took 3 hours to compose and 1/2 hour to make.

 

[Pieter12]

To a certain extent, experience counts. I can make a photo in a matter of minutes that might take a beginner much longer, because I might be able to spot an interesting angle sooner, can judge the light and composition quicker and have taken and seen thousands upon thousands of photographs before, sort of an unconscious database for comparison. Sometimes taking too much time means the shot is gone, perhaps forever. Sometimes you have to wait for everything to fall in place. But you need experience to know where to be and ready when that happens. Also, being familiar with how film or even a digital sensor records a scene, and being comfortable and at ease with the camera and its controls takes some time under the belt.

 

[MattKing]

Twenty years this thread has been lying dormant.
It is a bit fascinating though that the "dilution of time" refers to quickly firing off an inexpensive (!!!!) roll of slide film.

 

[Pieter12]

Twenty years this thread has been lying dormant.
It is a bit fascinating though that the "dilution of time" refers to quickly firing off an inexpensive (!!!!) roll of slide film.

Who dredges up this stuff? You've got to be searching to find it.

 

[MattKing]

Who dredges up this stuff? You've got to be searching to find it.

In this case, quite reasonably, the answer is someone new to the site who is wandering through what they might find here.
In general, I think that is a good thing, provided people pay better attention to the age of some of the threads.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The fact that the thread seems recent just shows that not much has changed in all these years. We still are arguing about the same things.

 

[ic-racer]

I honestly did not know APUG existed in 2002. I joined in 2007 as soon as I discovered it on the internet. I would have had more to share in the 2000-2002 time period because that is when I built my current darkroom and acquired most of the equipment that I still use now.

 

[gone]

Feelings come from thoughts. The eye/ears, etc sends the signals to the brain, the brain sends out hormones to the body based on what thoughts are triggered, and we get a feeling. So a feeling is just the end result of a thought.

I can tell at a glance if a photo is "good" or "bad", but as someone that started as a painter and still works in that realm, I also know that creativity can be stopped dead in it's tracks by criticism.

If someone is accomplished I tell them the truth. We're going to be solely discussing technique. But for the newbie who is not sure, keep it positive! This is very important. There's always something that can seen as positive about almost anything.

 

[awty]

I dont think the process dictates the level of planning and composing only difference is the volume. The percentage of time to a good prints is about the same for me no matter what process I use. Only difference is Im slightly less discerning when it comes to labor intensive processes, mostly because I get a greater sense of achievement.

 

[Helge]

Who dredges up this stuff? You've got to be searching to find it.

Yeah who does searches‽ Curiosity is for dorks. X-/

Searches is the main reason for forums to exist.
We are building a vast liberary of knowledge and thought vectors, that no one single person would ever think of or could write down.
That is the strength of forums. And the catastrophic ambutation of groups on FB and Reddit.

And being able to pick up a conversation after years or decades is completely unique to forums in human history.

That can not be shamed out or questioned.
And why would you, really?

Thoughts doesn’t have an expiry date.
On the contrary, they often become more valuable as time goes by, and in ways you wouldn’t imagine.

 

[Helge]

I don't believe we do. While I was entertained by the essay written and understand where it comes from, I think that someone with any type of camera can easily compose and take time with the making of a photograph. A big glass negative and albumen prints do not make automatically a great photograph. If someone without a photographer's eye did the same organ grinder dance as described earlier in the essay the photographs produced would have been exactly the same. If the Mr Jackson used a brownie, exactly the same, iPhone exactly the same. While I understand the heart of the matter is it really that important? in 100 or even 12 years my deliciously boring machine gunned exposures will look just as interesting to cousin George who has a 20x30 blow up on his wall as the same frame made with my 14x17 wet plate to sensitized paper prints. Time heals all wounds and makes things that people who believe that just because it was made big, or through a harder means its better not as better. There are many boring, uninteresting, poorly composed images that took 3 hours to compose and 1/2 hour to make.

They could, but they won’t be.
The medium is the message, humans and their tools coevolve, you write better with a typewriter and all that.
That machine/medium you use and it’s limitations, strength and history has a huge impact on your cognitive outset and process.
And in ways that you are not at all conscious of often.

 

[amam]

could

yes. sorry for wrong word.

Who dredges up this stuff

You've got to be searching to find it.

I did. This stuff? I guess there is a problem with old threads advertised on front page almost 2million strong, we should only look at and reply to new posts
and ignore all old threads as not interesting, not helpful, does not pertain to photography today, unless it is a thread by someone named Photo Engineer.

If you need to know how I found it, it. I looked at "new hello welcome message" person from 2002 posted as if "just arrived" in a Jules Verne book yesterday, Friday 13th. I looked at previous posts to see what kind of conversation he had 20 years ago. You can click on "messages" under avatar and you are able to see "post herstory". This thread conversation looked interesting and it is. I like Mr Jackson's oeuvre, and David mentioned he had one arm. I never knew that and now I see his photography and boatsmanship in a different light. That's what I got out of the thread, what did you get?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Twenty years this thread has been lying dormant.
It is a bit fascinating though that the "dilution of time" refers to quickly firing off an inexpensive (!!!!) roll of slide film.

When film was cheap, words were dirty and the air was clean!

 

[Snowfire]

75% waste is not bad at all, but I didn't want to use a higher percentage because that might indicate someone was a really bad photographer...;-)

I remember running across a journal I keep in my first year in Art School. 20 years later, the good ideas were for the most part still "interesting" and the bad still bad...but only now more nostolgic...

Professional wildlife photographers, even some very gifted and conscientious ones, may discard as much as 99.99% of what they shoot just to get those few shots that are good enough to publish. Some have admitted as much.

 

[amam]

Professional wildlife photographers, even some very gifted and conscientious ones, may discard as much as 99.99% of what they shoot just to get those few shots that are good enough to publish. Some have admitted as much.

Fine Point!
It doesn't matter how slow you go you will still have .01% not worthy. Just look at the photographer in the re-make of Walter Mitty or anyone else. most people don't edit hard enough. They are afraid of telling themselves that most of what they make is not very good and they need the participation trophy. The fact of the matter is that most photographs people make are terrible and shouldn't be shared with others because they stink. . it has gotten worse with digital cameras, much worse than the "friend's slide show", I swear sometimes I get an email, I mean online drop box drive full of like 2000 photographs from a friend who tells me they are their "latest" I sure wish they would edit, maybe there are 3 or 4 nuggets of gold in there. I'm much better, I would be a dunning kruger poster child if I thought different. I photographed family and out of 4000 photos I burned CDs and mailed them 30 images. Sadly they didn't expect 7 so I had to go over the fence and "please" the masses.

I wonder if Jackson felt the same pressure, that he had to have 100 photos, and just didn't do a hard edit, and now because the photos are hypnotizing they are good but he would have edited it down to 40 images.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Professional wildlife photographers, even some very gifted and conscientious ones, may discard as much as 99.99% of what they shoot just to get those few shots that are good enough to publish. Some have admitted as much.

It's hard to get wildlife to pose.

 

[Bill Burk]

It's hard to get wildlife to pose.

Art Wolfe and Thomas Mangelsen are two nature photographers who specialize in wildlife photography that I admire. Then there’s Jim Brandenburg whose photo of a white wolf rivals HCB’s puddle jumper.

Welcome @amam old threads can be fun

 

[mooseontheloose]

Twenty years this thread has been lying dormant.
It is a bit fascinating though that the "dilution of time" refers to quickly firing off an inexpensive (!!!!) roll of slide film.

I noticed this as well! I can't remember film and processing being that cheap, but of course it was. Now I can't even get my film scanned here in Japan since it costs more than the development (!) - I just do it myself (or would, if my scanner was working properly).

Also feeling a bit nostalgic over some of the posters who used to be quite prolific here on APUG (at least in the years after I joined) and haven't been around for many more since then.

 

[gone]

Photography (film photography and darkroom printing) is a difficult craft to master. Having a good eye is absolutely necessary, but like all the other forms of art, requires mastery of the materials. I believe it was De Vinci, maybe, who said that the true tragedy in life is when inspiration surpasses execution.

The more we know about how things work, the freer we are to experiment and break the rules. But you can't start there, anymore than you could start where Picasso ended. One has to learn the fundamentals first. This is how it's been w/ any art for centuries.

Still, w/o a good eye and a particularly unique and true viewpoint, it's awfully easy to be one of those people who have nothing to say but say it beautifully. That comes up a lot in gallery shows. I don't mind that though, as long as they give me food and wine, I'll be happy to look at almost anything for a while. Even bad representational art, but that requires considerably more wine.

 

[Snowfire]

.

Still, w/o a good eye and a particularly unique and true viewpoint, it's awfully easy to be one of those people who have nothing to say but say it beautifully. .

Perhaps there is a certain satori to saying nothing beautifully...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe it's the viewer who is lacking.

 

[slackercrurster]

Professional wildlife photographers, even some very gifted and conscientious ones, may discard as much as 99.99% of what they shoot just to get those few shots that are good enough to publish. Some have admitted as much.

Not only wildlife. Can go for weeks before I get a winner on the street.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Mr. Wilson,

What a wonderful, wonderful text !!!