the person, or the equipment, the film and paper

Bob Carnie · Apr 28, 2014

hey I take offence, I use a rickety old Omega.

Chris Lange said:
High end equipment has never made me a better photographer but to a degree I find that it can allow for a more transparent working method. A V35 is a far more efficient tool than a rickety Omega. There are times I use a Hasselblad like a Holga, and times that I use a Stylus Epic to make pictures others would delegate to a 4x5.

I have a Russian sonnar knock off that renders beautifully, but for the sake of fluidity and ease of use, I haven't even looked at it since I put a summicron on my M2.

I find that I derive very little enjoyment from wrangling crappy equipment, I just don't have time for that stuff. Consistency and reliability are the name of the game in my eyes and from an equipment standpoint that is a guarantee that you only get with well maintained equipment, be it an old folder or a Hasselblad 503CW.

removed account4 · Apr 28, 2014

cliveh said:
John, a million people may have a million different reasons for the MO they use and decide to follow. As long as any individual follows the path that they believe is right for them and makes them happy, then amen.

i agree clive,
but sometimes there are also reasons why people do what they do ...
( and there are as many reasons as there people )

'art" for a long time has had a reactionary core..
and photography is no different ...
look at the work at the turn of the century through
the years that ansel adams et al. formed the f64
group as a reaction against painterly photography, or arts and crafts photography ...
using a photograph as a foundation to something else rather than an end result ( or was it ? )

i have reasons for doing what i do, part of it is because i am extremely bored
another part is because it is fun to make things by hand ... im sure people have reasons
for gravitating to what they like, don't like, equipment they like, don't like ... ground glass, 2 3Y3 viewing
from the hip, 3Y3s closed, cameraless or ?

it is easy to talk about machines and formulae and the tangible,
sometimes it is nice to talk about the INtangible

john

cliveh · Apr 28, 2014

jnanian said:
it is easy to talk about machines and formulae and the tangible,
sometimes it is nice to talk about the INtangible john

Couldn't agree more and would like to see more discussions about the intangible on this forum.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 28, 2014

dpurdy said:
The challenge is to be in control of every aspect of what you do and make the statement you mean to make. The more aspects of the statement you take responsibility for and and make exactly as you intend the truer the statement is. Working out of control with tools that aren't precise and process elements that depend on serendipity for artistic value are false, a lie, a step backwards and a waste of time.

Dennis

pdeeh said:
Well, that sounds like that's the challenge you set for yourself, which is fine of course, but also comes across as dismissive of anyone who doesn't work within your personal framework of beliefs, or even somewhat narrow-minded.

That's not what Dennis is saying at all.

You guys need to let go of this obsession with the means to the end (equipment/no equipment, film/no film, chemicals/no chemicals, paper/no paper, process/no process, and most importantly, thought/no thought), and start concentrating on the end itself. Which is the message.

If you want to be understood, you need to be understandable. That's both fundamental and crucial. That's where and why the control of process is necessary. It doesn't matter how you create your message. You just need to first have one. To have something to say. And then it needs to be accessible and comprehensible. It's the end that counts. Not the means/no means to that end.

If you don't want to be understood, that's fine too. Just don't then complain how unfair it is that you aren't. If you speak or write or photograph gibberish, chances are good that no one will understand what you are trying to say. And that you will then be misunderstood. Which for some may even be a goal.

I don't believe that Dennis was referring to the clarity and control of the process as the primary goal. He was referring to the clarity and control of the message produced by that process. The end statement. Or the lack thereof.

Speak clearly and know what it is you are trying to say. Regardless of what or how you are intent on saying it. And if not, then don't be surprised (or feign surprise) if no one understands you. The world is not a giant game of twenty questions played just for your entertainment.

Ken

pdeeh · Apr 28, 2014

I beg to differ about the interpretation of dpurdy's remark.

If you say "Working out of control with tools that aren't precise and process elements that depend on serendipity for artistic value are false, a lie, a step backwards and a waste of time.", that is very clearly exactly about process and material and not about message or end result.

Who are "You guys" , by the way? Are they straw men by any chance?

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 28, 2014

pdeeh said:
If you say "Working out of control with tools that aren't precise and process elements that depend on serendipity for artistic value are false, a lie, a step backwards and a waste of time.", that is very clearly exactly about process and material and not about message or end result.

Within the context of the overall post "artistic value" is a synonym for "message" or "end result." I thought that to be obvious.

pdeeh said:
Who are "You guys", by the way? Are they straw men by any chance?

"You guys..." refers to the subset of all equipment- and/or process-obsessive practitioners. That includes both those who think that equipment and process means everything. And those who think that equipment and process means nothing. Both are fringe-level inhabitants to exactly the same degree, each believing that their superiority derives from their distance opposite the other. But both are actually mirror images of each other.

And "straw men?" Don't even go there. That's an overused, immature attempt at pejorative admonition. It fails for exactly the same reason that "haters" does. See my signature line below...

Ken

removed account4 · Apr 28, 2014

i haven't read any anti or pro gear/process superiority or gibberish in this thread.

just simple and complex answers to the question of why one makes photographs and what is important to them.

removed account4 · Apr 29, 2014

NedL · Apr 29, 2014

cliveh said:
Couldn't agree more and would like to see more discussions about the intangible on this forum.

I'm with Clive.

Also, I think photographs can be found or discovered rather than a creation. It's very okay with me if some people don't want to call that photography, it is what it is.

Alan Klein · Apr 30, 2014

I went to a photo club contest last night. The contest had pictures from 6 retirement communities where people submitted two photos each. Mine were one digital and one film. No prints. The photos were shown using a digital projector so everyone in the audience including the judge could see them. Naturally I had to scan my film shot. The judged rated and critiqued each shot. He never noticed one of mine was film. He did comment on a couple of other photos that were submitted by others where they added grain to their shots. He said that he couldn't tell if that was from editing or the photos were film. Mostly his comments had to do with content, clipping, "rules" and what made the photos work or not. He did mention from a digital perspective how post processing could help to correct exposures, hot spots and things that should be "removed".

In the end, however, he rated the photos on end results. We photographers often get caught up in the processes we use. However, viewers, judges or just the lay public, care little about process and only what's in the print or displayed on the screen.

removed account4 · Apr 30, 2014

maybe my initial question was wrong ..
and the title of this thread was incorrect ..

i guess i should have had the question
and title:

what are your internal, intangible and psychological reasons for making photographs

Whiteymorange · May 1, 2014

jnanian said:
maybe my initial question was wrong ..
and the title of this thread was incorrect ..

i guess i should have had the question
and title:

what are your internal, intangible and psychological reasons for making photographs

Wow. Different question all together...more like, "Why do we make art?"

I think there is a need in many of us to communicate in an extra-verbal way, to share something that we can't really put into words. The reaction of other people to an image we make and share allows us into their minds (souls?) a little, allows us to ask "do you get it?" and to put them, in a small way, in our own.

Sounds very cosmic and woo woo, I know, but I have had to think about why I make art more than once. Making art and finding a way to share it when you are a painter is a lot of work, or it has been for many years without the internet. I had to justify all that work and expense when I really needed the time and money to raise a family, and in truth my art has never been a money maker. Of course, this is about showing art, not just making images, Sometimes I make images for much the same reason I doodle with a pencil, to think on paper, or film. Getting the rest of your body involved in thinking does actually stimulate different thoughts than you might get by sitting and pondering. I think I see things differently after I have photographed them, just as I see things differently after drawing them.

removed account4 · May 1, 2014

yeah, thanks whitey, that was heck of a morph, i agree ...

MartinCrabtree · May 1, 2014

I make art because my profession (as well as many others) has gotten so money hungry I can no longer create there. I've always enjoyed photography but in the past couple years it's become more a part of everything I do. It's unusual for me not to always have a camera within reach nowdays. I have gone through a period of GAS and have enough hardware that having one in reach is easy no matter where I am. It's changing the way I look at things too.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 1, 2014

I don't believe that I will ever be a recognized artist or person, but I strongly feel part of the world of art. Art has given me a lot in my life, and I feel obligated to try to honor that by giving back as much as I can.

Therefore, when I photograph or print, I feel that I owe it to myself (as an artist) and to the world of art, to always do the very best with it that I can. Art, to me, is to translate something that feels important into an object that others can view and interpret, and I must speak as clearly as I possibly can to make myself heard. When I do find the time to be in the darkroom and make prints, and I stick a negative in the enlarger, I am 99% certain that this particular negative will never see the light of an enlarger again. There is nothing more frustrating than knowing that I didn't do my very best, and look at a print and be unhappy with it. If I had put my everything into it, it would be OK if I wasn't happy with it.
So I absolutely MUST make the most of it. I gladly put that pressure on myself and challenge my abilities, patience, and stamina with this requirement. To do that I need the best enlarger and enlarging lens I can afford, and a photo paper and developer that I know well enough to know what to expect, so that I can bend it to my will.
I also need a camera that I'm used to, and film and film developer that I am familiar with. If I try something new I will likely not get the best of those materials.

So, the materials do matter, but only when they are in concert with the actual achievement of making those prints and when they help accomplish what we are looking to do.

I feel that I can work with this challenge that I assign myself if my materials and equipment are also up to the challenge. Sometimes a Holga will do just fine. Other times I must have the Hasselblad or Canon EOS. Always I need a great enlarger and fresh paper.

dehk · May 1, 2014

Well, the person has to choose his equipment, the film and paper right? (Usually that is how it works)

So I'll go with Person.

dehk · May 1, 2014

jnanian said:
maybe my initial question was wrong ..
and the title of this thread was incorrect ..

i guess i should have had the question
and title:

what are your internal, intangible and psychological reasons for making photographs

Well in that case, "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed". That's really all there is.

Bill Burk · May 2, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I am 99% certain that this particular negative will never see the light of an enlarger again.

Interesting thought. It made me think about my records which have not seen the point of a needle in a long time...

So I got out the old record player and started playing a few hot jazz 78's... Sounded like a little too much wow, so I got the rubber rejuvenator and a couple drops of oil... Much better. Still I know I have a Shure V15 Type IV and Kenwood amp and Acoustic Research speakers if I want a better sound. But this old school crystal cartridge, tube amp, rim-drive self-contained record player sounds just fine.

bdial · May 2, 2014

I like making things that wouldn't exist otherwise.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 2, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Interesting thought. It made me think about my records which have not seen the point of a needle in a long time...

So I got out the old record player and started playing a few hot jazz 78's... Sounded like a little too much wow, so I got the rubber rejuvenator and a couple drops of oil... Much better. Still I know I have a Shure V15 Type IV and Kenwood amp and Acoustic Research speakers if I want a better sound. But this old school crystal cartridge, tube amp, rim-drive self-contained record player sounds just fine.

I know this. Today I try to buy all of the new music I buy on vinyl. Just because I like it better. I like how it sounds more than most digital formats.
I was one of those who never gave up on vinyl when it went out of style, kept 80% of my record collection, even moved it with me from Sweden to the US at considerable cost (I have about 3,500 albums). Today I'm thankful I did. They still sound as good as ever, and the modern releases on vinyl are better than ever.

While I've never owned anything that plays 78s, I have heard plenty of them, and there's a character to them that you just don't get with modern media, and I love that. I have a gorgeous transfer of Sweden's pride in male opera, Jussi Bjorling, from wax, cylinders, and 78s that sounds phenomenal in its own way.

irvd2x · May 2, 2014

dehk said:
Well in that case, "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed". That's really all there is.

Actually,that isnt all there is,because the question then goes to..Why do you want to see what something looks like when it is photograped?

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 5020T using Tapatalk

removed account4 · May 2, 2014

i have a bad memory and photograph things, people, places and make things
as a way i can try to remember things, feelings places where i was and what i felt.
moments don't stay for long and maybe a photograph, or negative will help.
kind of like what smells can do, or listening to a song you used to listen to 30-40 years before ..
i also make photographs in public ( portraits or documentation ) to force myself
to overcome shyness and fear and to push myself. when i am with a camera or making a portrait
( or documenting a building, or streetscape or whatever ... )
i am somehow a different person, someone who isn't shy, or fearful of people around me...
so i guess it is like therapy in a way ...

dutchsteammachine · Jun 14, 2017

Everything needs to work together for a good photo.

The photographer is more important than the equipment.

But good and familiar equipment helps a lot.

Arklatexian · Jun 14, 2017

Bill Burk said:
An open question deserves a rambling thought. Literally the question might be understood as "why do we talk about gear when it's the photography that's important" - yet I fall for it every time - I think it's just an opportunity to talk about what's on our minds...

The gear for me is provisions. What I do with it is photography. I have no problem talking about how I provision a trip...

Just came back from a trip where I spent the day sitting in one spot. Thought about my forum posts and others' occasionally since my mind was free. The weather was partly stormy. It'd rained Friday night, and by morning the storm was clearing but we had partly cloudy skies. I was thinking about the long range of light with sunlight-dappled leaves. And how easy with a few minutes' wait, the scene would fit the film's range easily.

I had four pieces of photographic paraphernalia with me. Only one required batteries, the Sekonic Twin-mate. One was a spare box of film. Another was the Weston Master II with Zone System patches and the fourth was the only camera I brought with me, the new (to me) Kodak Retina I with f/3.5 Ektar lens.

The Retina had been just CLA (by me) and film, light meter and shutter all were in a calibrated state. So I KNEW my shutter speeds. When I want 1/40 I select 100... The film EI could be either 100 (because it is) or 64 (to suit my taste). I had a full range of shutter speeds, but as you can probably tell, without a tripod my choices were 100 (1/40), 250 (1/80) and 500 (1/160). Fortunately the Master II HAS these shutter speed markings, and the day provided opportunities to use them.

With partly cloudy skies, the light was changing rapidly. Not only that, but I was stationed at a corner where it was dark - a forest shaded road junction. My job was to tell the mountain bikers to turn left (straight ahead was certain misadventure). Each rider passed my station exactly once, they all had to learn the route anew each time.

In the morning, the still-wet trail caused inexperienced rider's several spills. Only one rider was significantly shaken, the rest of the incidents were minor and they bounced right back.

I nicknamed the event "Ouchery".

Now comes the part I regret. Dusk arrived and so my opportunities to photograph came to a natural end. Sure I could have brought more gear (I could have checked the PC contact and brought a small flash). What WAS I thinking? Sunday, I knew we'd just pack up and go. So at the end of dusk Saturday, I rewound and decided to NOT load the second roll of film.

Too bad. Sunday morning we had more rain. I would cherish photographs of young, (miserable) campers packing up in the rain. I missed foggy hillside views. Sure I would have had to tend to moisture with a paper towel and kept the camera in a chest pocket.

Oh well, next time I'll do it right and treat film like the commodity and time as the more precious resource.

And I/we hope your next trip is as interesting as the one you just described and that you tell us about the next one also.....Regards!

Ian Leake · Jun 15, 2017

Cameras, lenses, film, paper, chemicals and process are tools to achieve a desired end. That makes them interesting to talk about (at least to an extent).

The internet makes it very easy to talk about this stuff. But it's much harder to talk about aesthetics without seeing the real print.

the person, or the equipment, the film and paper

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency