Adrian Lord Posted January 31, 2009 Share #21 Posted January 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Film and processing? - It'll boil down to a core of discerning enthusiasts/specialists in a high-end niche, just like vinly records and valve amps for us hi fi cognoscienti. I got a nice Leica Enlarger - V35 on Ebay last year £260. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Hi Adrian Lord, Take a look here Is traditional processing making a comeback?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MattLain Posted January 31, 2009 Share #22 Posted January 31, 2009 Kodak's main goal in the past wasn't to sell film and chemicals in order to make money? Of course it was, they're a manufacturer of products, but I'm not talking about analogue marketing or sales. Its about the principles of what makes us do it. Digital technology was born and bread out of the need for faster, cheaper, easier image capture - if that doesn't spell out M O N E Y I don't know what does. That's why digital technology dominates the commercial side of the profession and film still dominates the 'art' side. And you don't need to complete a degree to learn how to be a commercial photographer - books and practice will do that. To be a great photographer - education is needed. It was also never digital cameras that gave me the first buzz. It was the challenge of reviving the (even then) unused college darkroom, and dedicating myself to fixing an image on a surface - not exposing sensors and storing information. I can't see any point in having students invest the time and money in learning "yesterday's" technology. Working photographers have virtually no choice but to be shooting digitally or at least in a digital workflow if they shoot film. I've nothing against digital workflow post capture, as long as the photograph isn't made into a photo-manipulation but insisted to be a photograph. It also must be considered that digital prints still don't have the same life as darkroom prints (bw or colour). I often scan film if I want to get the most values out of the stuff, but I never want to change anything more than I would have done in a darkroom. I'm here to be a photographer, not a photo-manipulator. A few current photographers that are still 'silver-capture-based': - Rik Pinkcome - Joel Sternfeld - Neeta Madahar - Elina Brotherus - Andreas Gursky - Dan Holdsworth - Gregory Crewdson - Melanie Manchot - Thomas Struth - Mark Power - Trent Parke Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share #23 Posted February 1, 2009 I see the biggest challenge facing digital photography is the fact that the image is too perfect, almost too manufactured. There are situations, commercially when a perfect image is an advantage i.e. product shoots, architectural images and photo journalism but most of the digital images I see lack imperfection. Imperfection in a picture is good on the eye and has, to my mind more room for artistic impression. In fact, thinking about the subject of perfection. It is the one aspect of Ansel Adams work which does not work for me, and I am thinking in particular of his Yosemite pictures of El Capitan. They are too perfect Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted February 1, 2009 Share #24 Posted February 1, 2009 I see the biggest challenge facing digital photography is the fact that the image is too perfect, almost too manufactured. There are situations, commercially when a perfect image is an advantage i.e. product shoots, architectural images and photo journalism but most of the digital images I see lack imperfection. Imperfection in a picture is good on the eye and has, to my mind more room for artistic impression. In fact, thinking about the subject of perfection. It is the one aspect of Ansel Adams work which does not work for me, and I am thinking in particular of his Yosemite pictures of El Capitan. They are too perfect I agree wholeheartedly with most of this. Imperfection can be beautiful, and making it so is the work of an artist. But Ansel Adams' work also takes advantage of one glaring imperfection ... it lacks color! I realize that's quite a generalization, but I think the art is in the fact that he made B&W work so well in a context in which color would normally be a huge factor (even though he didn't really have a choice in the early years). To me, the fact that it is such an imperfect representation of the world is one of the greatest attractions of B&W film. Of course, the world isn't flat, either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted February 1, 2009 Share #25 Posted February 1, 2009 I see the biggest challenge facing digital photography is the fact that the image is too perfect, almost too manufactured... Consider that for a while, people knocked digital as not being as good as film. I understand that some people feel they can best express their vision on film. And that may be practical if you are a hobbyist or artist. But in the commercial world there are other factors. My biggest problem with shooting film was the fact that I wouldn't know if I had the project covered until some time later when the film was developed. This led to some stressful situations, and required me to overshoot to cover myself. This can also reduce one's likelihood of trying something more experimental, such as a new lighting technique or other untested approach or technique. I also had to shoot reserve film on every subject and hold these back from the lab. At the end of the year, I'd throw away a few hundred rolls of unprocessed film. And film is very wasteful and not as "green" as digital. Workflow with film: (Client can see Polaroids and hope the film comes out the same or that I caught the action or expression.) 1. Chemicals and other material must be mined, processed and shipped to the film manufacturer. 2. Film manufacturing uses these raw ingredients, water, and energy. Plus it needs materials for packaging. It must have a building and workers. 3. Waste from film manufacturing needs to be disposed of. 4. Film needs to be shipped to a dealer. More store space and workers. 5. I have to pick up the film from the dealer or have it shipped to me. 6 I have to inventory it and store it in a fridge. Some always goes to waste. 7. Shoot film - typically resulting in a large bag of waste wrappers from each day's shooting of chrome and Polaroid. It goes in the trash. 8 Label each roll or Quickload sheet of film that will be processed along with its corresponding "hold" rolls or sheets. This needs to be done for every setup or change. Label and attach a Polaroid to each. Additionally, a nearby lab must exist that is equipped and staffed. The lab uses chemicals, water and energy. The chemicals must be disposed of. 9. Take film to the lab. (Or use a messenger.) - 9.5 Sometimes a clip test needs to be read. So I either have to go to the lab, or the test has to be sent to me. 10. Pick up film from the lab. (Or use a messenger.) 11. Physically sort, edit and label the film. 12. Send selected film to the client. (Or I select the best shots and scan them.) 13. Client (ad agency or designer) may send the film to their client for selection or approval. 14. Client scans film and returns it to me. Or I scan it. 15. Upload the scanned files to the client or send a disk. 16. File the film in a job jacket placed in a filing cabinet. 17. Archive the scans on a computer hard drive. Inventory of disposables: Various formats, speeds, and types of film. Polaroid in packs and sheets. (When I shared a studio with two others, we had 3 packed full size refrigerators.) Film storage sleeves, labels, inkjet ink and paper for proofs, cds and dvds, shipping envelopes for film and disks. Digital workflow: (Client can see images as I shoot tethered.) 1. Shoot the photos. 2. Back up the photos to disk or laptop. 3. Copy photos onto my office computer. 4. Sort the photos on screen and make low res proofs. 5. Post proofs for selection so that all interested parties can see them. 6. Make conversions and adjustments to selected files. 7. Post the files or send a disk. 8. Archive the files on a computer hard drive. 9. Format the cards. Inventory of disposables: CDs, DVDs, inkjet ink and proofing paper. Envelopes for CD and proof sheet shipping. Equipment differences: Film - Scanner needed. I actually have three film scanners. I usually shot on several different format cameras. (35, 6x6 and 4x5 (with roll film backs.) Large light table, color meter, gel filters, spot flash/ambient meter, incident flash/ambient meter, file cabinets, fridge. (Let's leave the darkroom out of it.) Digital - digital camera bodies - Now they may be more or less costly than film bodies. I don't require several formats. I carry two laptops but that is optional for others. Memory cards, more hard drives than would be used just for scanned photos. Shelf or drawer space to store hard drives. I don't use separate meters or gel filters. The economics, lack of instant feedback, and delay caused by film are working against it in commercial applications. My clients wouldn't accept the delays, costs, and uncertainty caused by using it. Even if I loved film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share #26 Posted February 1, 2009 I agree wholeheartedly with most of this. Imperfection can be beautiful, and making it so is the work of an artist. But Ansel Adams' work also takes advantage of one glaring imperfection ... it lacks color! I realize that's quite a generalization, but I think the art is in the fact that he made B&W work so well in a context in which color would normally be a huge factor (even though he didn't really have a choice in the early years). To me, the fact that it is such an imperfect representation of the world is one of the greatest attractions of B&W film. Of course, the world isn't flat, either. I would not say that a picture that lacks colour is a glaring imperfection. But I feel the particular photograph in question lacks atmosphere. I looks rather like he had driven through the Yosemite valley, saw the shot, stopped his car and taken it whereas, in reality he had climbed up 2000 feet of deep snow crust to make that picture. Somehow the viewer only knows this through narrative. The picture does not express that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted February 1, 2009 Share #27 Posted February 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...I've nothing against digital workflow post capture, as long as the photograph isn't made into a photo-manipulation but insisted to be a photograph. It also must be considered that digital prints still don't have the same life as darkroom prints (bw or colour)... That's true, pigmented prints can have a longer life - especially in dark storage where it is expected to be more than 200 or 300 years before appreciable fading happens. BW prints with the latest Epson inks and some paper combinations have expected life when displayed under regular glass or UV glass greater than 400-450 years WIR Epson 9880 What is wrong with photo manipulation? Not everyone is a photo purist. Jerry Uelsmann did some manipulations and montages that were very impressive to me. I tend to do very representative images but lately found that it is nice to break out and explore another side of my imagery with no bounds. I like to think of myself as multi-dimensional. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted February 1, 2009 Alan- There is nothing at all wrong with photo manipulation, it just isn't for me and I can only speak for myself. and Allan I just took your invitation to view your site. Not my sort of think, wouldn't know if it was good or bad but each to their own Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattLain Posted February 1, 2009 Share #29 Posted February 1, 2009 I've got nothing against photo-manipulation either, but it isn't photography - so it isn't for me. Alan, by life I meant 'aesthetic life'. The image is inside the paper of darkroom prints, it seems to have more depth and more realistic of life. Ink on the surface just doesn't do it for me quite as much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted February 2, 2009 Share #30 Posted February 2, 2009 For me - photo-manipulation with "PS" = fake photography and artificial the name for this images must be "compu-graphy" ....just same example: TV-stations: manipulate with fake pictures & films news papers: manipulate with fake pictures & stories magazin's manipulate with fake pictures & stories politcian: manipulate (American War im IRAQ start with endless lies and fake pictures) Wallstreet-Casino manipulate & lies - daily Lehmann Brothers, Bernard Madoff - etc. etc. ... pack of extreme criminal lies only.....! ...where I look - lies and deception wls:cool: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted February 2, 2009 Share #31 Posted February 2, 2009 For me - photo-manipulation with "PS" = fake photography and artificial the name for this images must be "compu-graphy" ....just same example: TV-stations: manipulate with fake pictures & films news papers: manipulate with fake pictures & stories magazin's manipulate with fake pictures & stories politcian: manipulate (American War im IRAQ start with endless lies and fake pictures) Wallstreet-Casino manipulate & lies - daily Lehmann Brothers, Bernard Madoff - etc. etc. ... pack of extreme criminal lies only.....! ...where I look - lies and deception wls:cool: The world is out to get you. Not every photographer is a news reporter or journalist. What if I told you that Gene Smith posed some of his famous photos from the "Spanish Village" series? He was an illustrator. Personal expression has a lot of room for interpretation. One doesn't have to be a slave to recording things exactly as they appear. Was it also wrong for a National Geographic photographer to light up Stonehenge with a bunch of small flashlights? Part of the creative process is finding new ways to interpret something in order to make a person think about it or show it in a different way. Perhaps the photograph is an expression of how the subject makes you feel rather than a depiction of what exactly what it looks like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted February 2, 2009 Share #32 Posted February 2, 2009 The world is out to get you. Not every photographer is a news reporter or journalist. What if I told you that Gene Smith posed some of his famous photos from the "Spanish Village" series? He was an illustrator. Personal expression has a lot of room for interpretation. One doesn't have to be a slave to recording things exactly as they appear. Was it also wrong for a National Geographic photographer to light up Stonehenge with a bunch of small flashlights? Part of the creative process is finding new ways to interpret something in order to make a person think about it or show it in a different way. Perhaps the photograph is an expression of how the subject makes you feel rather than a depiction of what exactly what it looks like. Hope you not misunderstood me - I have nothing against "photo-manipulation". I prefer the "real & true" photography btw - you have a great homepage & Photoshelter! Well done Regards wls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share #33 Posted February 2, 2009 Photography is, or should be a very personal medium and the way the artist expresses him or herself should never be judged or criticised. Studying other artists work is the the bedrock of progress in our own personal journeys. I am with wls.shanghai regarding my preference for film and traditional processing but not against any other artists expression of thier art Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattLain Posted February 2, 2009 Share #34 Posted February 2, 2009 If we are talking about lies - "not a photograph in the world has any narrative ability" - to quote winogrand. Every photograph is essentially a lie, a representation, an interpretation, an impression, expression and a fiction. There are photographs, which attempt to represent something through means of photography (and photography only). And, there are photo-manipulations which begin with a photograph or photographs and introduce artistic techniques in an attempt to create something unique. I'm not a 'purist', I just recognise the difference. Digital-manipulations could be seen as the greatest visual lie of them all, as the photograph never actually exists in any original form - just the data that tells computers and printers what's going on. Digital-manipulation is one of the most unoriginal forms of self expression, the ease of access to editing programs and software that provides so much freedom devalues the process and when 'overdone' the results are quite simply childish to my eye. I think this is the main reason why film is still appealing to many practicing and professional art photographers, the imperfection, the hardship of making it, the failure - its what art is about, not the click of a button. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share #35 Posted February 2, 2009 That's me put firmly in my place then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted February 3, 2009 Share #36 Posted February 3, 2009 Not because a few folks talk about making a darkroom that Ilford inc. and Kodak inc. will be saved or whatever. The truth is, digital took over a long time ago and is taking over more and more each day. Film is still there but the truth is, will your kind shoot film or shoot digital or a cyber photography form in the future? Answer this and understand the truth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerhardt Isringhaus Posted February 3, 2009 Share #37 Posted February 3, 2009 50 years ago the big question was, is photography art. Now we grapple with, is digital photography or photo manipulation art. I think it is all in the eye of the beholder. Art is a means of communication, whatever the medium, that makes us contemplate the world in a different way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted February 3, 2009 Share #38 Posted February 3, 2009 Not because a few folks talk about making a darkroom that Ilford inc. and Kodak inc. will be saved or whatever. . True. I can't even give away my darkroom gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted February 3, 2009 Share #39 Posted February 3, 2009 True. I can't even give away my darkroom gear. Alan, You're just in the wrong place. I'm planning on setting up a wet darkroom shortly (instead of using the bathroom, as I have been doing), and can assure you that if I was within range your gear would be spoken for in no time. No plans on moving to Japan and bringing your darkroom gear with you, I suppose? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 3, 2009 Share #40 Posted February 3, 2009 Not because a few folks talk about making a darkroom that Ilford inc. and Kodak inc. will be saved or whatever. The truth is, digital took over a long time ago and is taking over more and more each day. Film is still there but the truth is, will your kind shoot film or shoot digital or a cyber photography form in the future? Answer this and understand the truth. But then I will be dead and so I won't care I could not care less what other people do. I enjoy film. If it disappears I will enjoy other things, but while it is with us it is my medium of preference and it needs no justification. 'Took over'? This creates the wrong impression, because as long as something is an available medium, it can be used artistically and without compromise regardless of how widespread its use is. Not many people paint compared to take photos. Does not seem to have diminished the standing of painters much. There is no 'all or nothing - wake up and smell the coffee' here. If people like my prints then what do I need to worry about? I still suspect that film will be available for a loooooong time even if only a couple of manufacturers support a niche market. Thats good enough for me. I will deal with the demise of film when and if it happens. until then I will continue to be unable to make my mind up as to whether I prefer neopan 400 or TriX etc etc! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.