Thanks, I found that a valuable read - and I think it's quite to the point as well, even though we're talking hobbies here instead of defunct societies.Here’s a really nice essay I read the other day. Many good points to think over.
Why shoot analogue colour photos?
-
A
- Thread starter ChrisGalway
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold One Liter C41 Development Kits
- Started by davela
-
For Sale Rolleiflex 2.8A-E Mirror - Rolleiflex Viewing Screen
- Started by davela
-
For Sale Nikon SB-20 Flash - Working
- Started by davela
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Accessories Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Five Lenses Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
Forum statistics
I'm saying you should perhaps not think that. When someone says "If you're serious about X, you should A, B, and C" there is a good chance they're not only outlining what they think is right and proper but possibly what they consider to be the only way to be "serious" about X and not engaging in judgment of you at all. The judgment is of "serious X".
A lot of people went to school to learn photography and had to establish what they considered best practices for reliably getting good exposures and printable negatives. That was something you had to do when you paid for every single exposure and had no second chance at the photo. It engenders a different (i.e., less strict) mentality about the whole thing when you have a little screen on the back of the camera to show you what you just did.
If someone says to me, "You're not serious about photography unless you use a spot meter and use the zone system" I'll just accept that I'm not serious about photography in their estimation - because I don't care about the zone system and I hardly ever use any kind of meter. I can accept that they think that way, though, and not see it as having much of anything to do with me.
They are the photographic equivalent of the impressionist movement?
Now... I know nothing about art... but I have heard that the impressionist movement was, in part, a response to photography.
Impressionism – The influence of Photography
The rise of Impressionism can be seen in part as a response by artists to the newly established medium of photography. In the same way that the Realist artists had focused on everyday life, photogr…
kiamaartgallery.wordpress.com
Photography appears at a time when many painters were focused on accurately depicting reality. Then enters photography, and now people can make a far more precise depiction of reality with a fraction of the effort. What to do? Instead of giving up on brushes, many painters "rebel" and start to experiment with light and color in ways the photographer cannot replicate. At first, their work is seen as inferior, sketchy, and unfinished, an eventually becomes accepted.
Light leaks, lomographic films, redscale, pre-exposed rolls, and intentionally underexposing film to push it later (i.e. using it "wrong") to enhance its flaws... It sure looks like a rebellion against the clinical perfection of digital.
Now, I don't particularly care for light leaks or lomographic films. But I do like a little bit of grain and the analog imperfection of film.
Let X = "Photography".
Why should my seriousness about photography be questioned because I choose to (say) not learn the zone system?
Why can't they instead say "I strongly recommend that you learn the zone system, it will really make your photography much better"?
There is absolutely no reason why conveying best practices necessarily requires a commentary on whether someone else is or is not serious about their hobby. Opinions and advice do not have to be coated in judgement or condescension.
Ok. While I do not share the view you express here, I do understand it. I think that the person in your hypothetical scenario is being a jackass, but I understand the point of view that you don't need go give a jackass any attention. I don't share your view because I think that this person is creating a hostile environment and is gate-keeping, but I do see your perspective here.
Nope. You are misinterpreting and twisting what people are contributing here.
What people are saying is that 'one of the main reasons to shoot analog film rather than digital' is not just a 'hope of recording abnormalities', but a rational endeavour that factors in abnormalities in the technical workflow for creative purposes.
The key phrase is 'factors in'. Choosing to play with those abnormalities doesn't necessarily mean that these photographers don't know composition, or don't know exposure, or don't know what they're doing or what they want to achieve. It's not monkeys pushing a button and hoping for the best.
Also - choosing to play with those abnormalities doesn't necessarily mean that these photographers are 'doomed' and will never get back on the "right path" and learn the virtues of e.g. collodion, if they're aptly guided and their curiosity fostered. So please don't draw up those bridges yet!
Also - it's actually surprising how many of those young photographers who seek to expand the vocabulary of this medium this way are actually far, far better photographers than the vast majority of blowhards and Ansel Adams fanboys in here. Knowing a little elementary physics (the principles of densitometry lie in elementary physics taught to 2nd gymnasium pupils throughout the world) knowing all the flavours of baryta papers by heart and mixing D76 from scratch doesn't make you guys better 'photographers'. Better 'darkroom' tinkerers' - yes. Photographers? No way.
@dcy - sorry that you've been put on the spot like this. I admire your candor and curiosity. Please don't be intimidated, and don't for a moment think that being older, having contributed 5.000 posts on this site, knowing a few empirical rules, and admiring bearded large format photographers who took boring contrasty pictures of roots and rocks makes these people any more 'serious' photographers than a young amateur with a lust for discovery and enthusiasm to attempt new things.
Last edited:
That doesn't make their points any more valid, or their arrogance and gatekeeping more tolerable. Unless, that is, if they're provably better photographers, which in most cases they are not (most of the shots shared on the pictures' subforums are almost as bad as mine)
Last edited:
dcy,
You seem to have made the choice to try to learn film/darkroom technique from other random hobbyists, dabblers and mostly blowhards on social media platforms. What did you expect?
Also just to put this one out to pasture, nobody credible would say something like you have to use the Zone System to be a good photographer. That’s just silly.
You seem to have made the choice to try to learn film/darkroom technique from other random hobbyists, dabblers and mostly blowhards on social media platforms. What did you expect?
Also just to put this one out to pasture, nobody credible would say something like you have to use the Zone System to be a good photographer. That’s just silly.
I'm not saying it does.
The whole "gatekeeping" thing is in your head. There's no gate to keep. If you want to do something, do it. You're the only one who will stop you. If you want to learn, you will find sources - it's now far easier than it was decades ago. You don't need to pay attention to "random hobbyists, dabblers and mostly blowhards" (as Milpool calls us all). Do what you want. Any specific information you need is easy to obtain from books or articles.
But if you think someone is insulting you because he says you aren't doing it right, consider that he may not be trying to insult you. He may be trying to help you. It may not be helpful to you. But he may think it is.
It was an example. People spout similar dogma all the time.
Oh there is gatekeeping and I've seen it here and elsewhere. Newbies scared off by the established members pooh-poohing their methods. Reminds me of the one and only time I joined a photography club back in the mid 80s....if one didn't have the "right brand" of camera one was an outcast. The whole point of the gatekeeping was to ensure that the "club", be it an actual club or an online space, remained for the people who followed certain methods.
That's true but it doesn't stop you from learning or doing what you want. You just don't get to hang out with people you don't like.
It’s a generalization. That’s all.
I picked on the Zone System comment because it was mentioned a few times and I think it’s a good example of the kind of dogmatic statement that is obviously silly enough not to get aggravated about. It’s quite different than say the music example.
I picked on the Zone System comment because it was mentioned a few times and I think it’s a good example of the kind of dogmatic statement that is obviously silly enough not to get aggravated about. It’s quite different than say the music example.
"insult"... "malice"...
Nobody here used those words, or synonyms of those words. Please don't put words in my mouth. Please do not misrepresent what other people have said. That is not helpful, and it just makes the forum environment a little bit more toxic.
I said that people can easily express opinions, share experience, and give advice without judging whether the way someone else's approach counts as valid, or serious, or whatever. This is purely a statement about how to approach communication --- how to be civil and kind... There is a huge chasm between that, and things like feeling insulted or thinking someone is malicious... You are now talking about people's state of mind, intentions, emotional reactions... Uhm... I don't know what to say about that.
It is possible for me to think that some comment or another that you made is hostile, without necessarily thinking that you had ill intent.
I this side-discussion right now would go better if we limit it to observable behavior rather than talking about intentions or state of mind.
Hmm, a few people are getting a bit worked up, so time to repeat the key part of my OP:
"If you are going to digitally post-process colour photos (colour negatives or positives), why bother to shoot analogue rather than digital (RAW)?
....
Of course, one perfectly valid response is: because it's so much more fun shooting film! And I'm sure there are many other good reasons, but I'm curious to know them."
"If you are going to digitally post-process colour photos (colour negatives or positives), why bother to shoot analogue rather than digital (RAW)?
....
Of course, one perfectly valid response is: because it's so much more fun shooting film! And I'm sure there are many other good reasons, but I'm curious to know them."
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,333
- Format
- 8x10 Format
It might be that certain people got quite comfortable with a certain category of film before digital printing was realistic. One can become habituated to the point they almost instinctively seek out subject matter which their preferred color film does a good job with, and they want to maintain a degree of continuity without a major new learning curve.
And with chromes or slides, there is almost instant feedback if you've got a winning image or not, are on the right track or not. You just need a good light box. There aren't any secondary hurdles like scanning with its own set of variables, before you can judge your shots. If you use a lab, you can tell them, you want such and such printing tweaks applied to the image just as it's seen. There is a visual standard right from the start of the process.
Besides, digital cameras have their own idiosyncrasies when it comes to hue gamut, contrast, etc. One might prefer the results of a particular film and its own personality instead. Anyone who thinks they can correct or improve just anything in PS should either go work for George Lucas or simply admit it ain't so.
And with chromes or slides, there is almost instant feedback if you've got a winning image or not, are on the right track or not. You just need a good light box. There aren't any secondary hurdles like scanning with its own set of variables, before you can judge your shots. If you use a lab, you can tell them, you want such and such printing tweaks applied to the image just as it's seen. There is a visual standard right from the start of the process.
Besides, digital cameras have their own idiosyncrasies when it comes to hue gamut, contrast, etc. One might prefer the results of a particular film and its own personality instead. Anyone who thinks they can correct or improve just anything in PS should either go work for George Lucas or simply admit it ain't so.
As one of the under 30 "young" guys exclusively shooting analog, here are my two cents.
Shooting color negative film is to me, the same as driving a manual Porsche/Alfa Romeo/etc. Ultimately, it's all about a sense of fun, an artistry and raw connection that is entirely unquantifiable, subjective, and human in feeling.
Going beyond that, I think that there's a fundamental question of why shoot color at all? Is it to accurately depict the world as it is, like a National Geographic cover? Or is it adding creatively to an image, taken to the extreme with Lomography type films? If it's entirely the former then yes, I can see why there's no real good argument. But if there is any amount of artistry involved in the shot beyond simple composition and exposure, then color negative film has a place.
For me, I find myself in the middle. Beyond it simply being fun to shoot, I find that shooting on film grants the final image artistic qualities, based on the technical characteristics of the stock, that I find desirable in conveying what I want to depict. I'm not a Lomography film person, but my goal with photography is never a 1:1 representation of what we see, and I suspect that is the case for many if not most photographers too. As an example - I recently was in Istanbul, and I brought along Ektar 100 as my stock. Ektar's sharpness and rich, slightly warm colors, really enhanced the look of an already colorful and warm city, I found it matched perfectly.
Yes, film emulation, AI or not, exists, but it isn't perfect. Specific films can't easily be replicated, I think people are giving digital manipulation too much credit. If you just want the simulation of "grain" on your digital image, that's up to you, but good luck trying to replicate ORWO NC200 in post. I know that in the case of the Ektar I mentioned above, I couldn't have gotten the same results easily with digital.
Lastly, with digital, I find that it is easy to get absorbed in generating endless shots, a lot of them being junk, since digital storage is nearly free. Shooting analog forces me to consider my shots and take my time to get it right. Plus, you get to hold the negatives in your hand, there's a sense of comfort in being able to hold it physically.
Shooting color negative film is to me, the same as driving a manual Porsche/Alfa Romeo/etc. Ultimately, it's all about a sense of fun, an artistry and raw connection that is entirely unquantifiable, subjective, and human in feeling.
Going beyond that, I think that there's a fundamental question of why shoot color at all? Is it to accurately depict the world as it is, like a National Geographic cover? Or is it adding creatively to an image, taken to the extreme with Lomography type films? If it's entirely the former then yes, I can see why there's no real good argument. But if there is any amount of artistry involved in the shot beyond simple composition and exposure, then color negative film has a place.
For me, I find myself in the middle. Beyond it simply being fun to shoot, I find that shooting on film grants the final image artistic qualities, based on the technical characteristics of the stock, that I find desirable in conveying what I want to depict. I'm not a Lomography film person, but my goal with photography is never a 1:1 representation of what we see, and I suspect that is the case for many if not most photographers too. As an example - I recently was in Istanbul, and I brought along Ektar 100 as my stock. Ektar's sharpness and rich, slightly warm colors, really enhanced the look of an already colorful and warm city, I found it matched perfectly.
Yes, film emulation, AI or not, exists, but it isn't perfect. Specific films can't easily be replicated, I think people are giving digital manipulation too much credit. If you just want the simulation of "grain" on your digital image, that's up to you, but good luck trying to replicate ORWO NC200 in post. I know that in the case of the Ektar I mentioned above, I couldn't have gotten the same results easily with digital.
Lastly, with digital, I find that it is easy to get absorbed in generating endless shots, a lot of them being junk, since digital storage is nearly free. Shooting analog forces me to consider my shots and take my time to get it right. Plus, you get to hold the negatives in your hand, there's a sense of comfort in being able to hold it physically.
Forget the gates…jump the fences!
I think, and certainly hope, that you are drastically mis-reading people.
The most famous thing Sartre never said? But whether he said it or not, it's a great quote.
I have no idea if anything I posted has led to the feeling that I hate what people are doing by shooting film for intended or unexpected results. I may not like some of it, but hate is a harsh word and has no place here. I am the last to want to enforce strict rules, definitions or methods.
Maybe we can agree that many people like to use colour film because of the somewhat unpredictable results - or the mere idea that results could be unpredictable?
I think that depends on the person and the film. I occasionally use Portra and expect reliable, predictable and repeatable results.
Well, it's a literal quote from 'Huis clos', so he really did write it, literally. That it's misunderstood much of the time is something else.
And indeed, sometimes a great quote is just a great quote even if the person never said it (that way) or meant something else. A bit like "wovon man nicht sprechen kann, muß man schweigen." Or "640Kb should be enough for anyone."
It's certainly not the reason I use colour film. Like Pieter, I expect it to replicate what I saw when I took the picture. It's not Forrest Gump's "box of chocolates" as far as I am concerned
pentaxuser
Not sure I can condense the variety of points of view I'm reading in this thread down to your (or any) simple one liner. So I won't agree, I'm afraid.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |