KM-25
Well-known
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Well the question I was responding to was asking if the work of others still inspired me. I answered honestly. It does. I can find a lot of work from a lot of people who aren't in books or magazines, and I find it inspirational. I'm sorry you don't appreciate that.
I worked for a bit over five years as a "professional" comic artist. Meaning I was contractually obliged to deliver and got paid for it, so I guess that makes me a professional artist of sorts. I know what it is like to work in an industry where publishers are used to amateurs giving them stuff for free or next to free. But the comic industry is astonishingly insular and reserved, so the amateurs were (and probably still are) about two or three years ahead of the pros. On everything. Style, form, story content, process, etc. Change usually started at the bottom with enthusiasts and amateurs and fought its way into the industry, not the other way around despite what some people liked to tell themselves. It's not that pro artists didn't see these things happening, but that editors for the most part will tell you that this progress is just a fad, or that readers don't actually like it, etc. etc.
I know of at least two people who were rejected by publishers on account of their "style" - essentially they were ahead of the curve at that time. Now both of them are working professionally a couple years later. The point being that because they could get their work online, and didn't have to suffer at the whims of publishers - they were still able to make some money off of their talents and drive. That's great. One of them even got a deal with a German publisher because of it - never would have happened without the internet. Never.
I don't discount amateurs or the internet, even if I don't always like the headaches they give professionals.
I could go on, but it's beside the point anyway really...
Well you're giving out a pretty hefty helping of BS by saying that I said things which I didn't say, after trying to put my words into a context that they were not in when I wrote them. I never said flickr was the end all be all for inspiration despite your claim here. That would be a moronic thing to claim. Beyond that what I did actually say was a response to these questions: I realize I can continue to shoot film. I'm asking about others' appreciation for the photography as you practice it, and with you as the audience. No change? What you see from others still motivates and inspires you as much as it used to?
Yes. What I see from others still inspires me. Yes I see a lot of work from others on flickr. Am I saying all of my inspiration comes from flickr? No. Don't shove words in my mouth and twist my point around so you can make a straw man attack on it. I'm happy to have a site like flickr where I can find work by those who aren't published in books or magazines, or don't have the means or interest to put on shows regularly.
KM-25
Well-known
Yeah, I hear ya...I just do much better in life if I avoid the Internet. I'll save everyone the time of reading my posts and keep away from here, it's really for the best...
j j
Well-known
Roll over Beethoven...
mfogiel
Mentor
It looks, like you are worrying too much about the technology.
Personally, I dislike digital for various reasons, above all the ugly rendering in B&W, Then, I'm not a big fan of colour photography in general, thus digital, with its almost single purpose of generating lifelike colour shots, leaves me cold.
Moreover, I am also quite tired of looking at endless photo crap, which tends to be all digital ( but not only).
BUT, generalisations can cover up interesting facts:
1) Good photographers are still good, even if they use digital
2) Some digital cameras produce results that are getting VERY close to film (look up some Leica S2 B&W)
3) The fact of having such an enormous choice of techniques and cameras nowadays is actually a big bonus in my book, the only thing we could complain about is shortage of good quality scanners which do not require a mortgage.
4) This gives you the unique opportunity to be YOURSELF, i.e. to chose the camera type and technique that you care for, without minding what everybody else regards as mainstream, and to FOCUS ON YOUR EXPRESSION.
Get positive, try this and that, and then persevere in what you really like.
Personally, I dislike digital for various reasons, above all the ugly rendering in B&W, Then, I'm not a big fan of colour photography in general, thus digital, with its almost single purpose of generating lifelike colour shots, leaves me cold.
Moreover, I am also quite tired of looking at endless photo crap, which tends to be all digital ( but not only).
BUT, generalisations can cover up interesting facts:
1) Good photographers are still good, even if they use digital
2) Some digital cameras produce results that are getting VERY close to film (look up some Leica S2 B&W)
3) The fact of having such an enormous choice of techniques and cameras nowadays is actually a big bonus in my book, the only thing we could complain about is shortage of good quality scanners which do not require a mortgage.
4) This gives you the unique opportunity to be YOURSELF, i.e. to chose the camera type and technique that you care for, without minding what everybody else regards as mainstream, and to FOCUS ON YOUR EXPRESSION.
Get positive, try this and that, and then persevere in what you really like.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
If I look at my serious work, which doesn't get on the www then I can't tell the difference between film and digital.
The difference to me is that I'd have nothing to do with it after taking the film out of the camera in the good old days but nowadays I have to do all the work, maintain and feed the printer expensive inks and so on.
The people who did all the work in the days of film were experts. I'd tell them what I wanted and they'd do it, for a price. I would, now and then, ask them to deal with snapshots from P&S's and they'd amaze me with the quality they could screw out of a negative. Even my son's Cosmic Symbol got this treatment once or twice and gave me a healthy respect for the thing.
Secondly, I wonder how many of us are talking/typing about prints in this thread. If we are comparing a magazine picture with a digital image on a monitor then they are chalk and cheese but not because of the camera and medium but because of how we view it.
And the selection process, starting with the editor deciding on the camera operator and so on right through to the printers deciding on the inks to use in the print run, is so completely different someone downloading a digital picture into a computer at home and looking at it on the (far from) calibrated laptop's screen.
Give your digital to as many experts as the magazine print had and you'd be surprised at the outcome, imo.
It's like the difference between my raw typing now and what got printed after the proof readers and editors had had a go at it.
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
If I look at my serious work, which doesn't get on the www then I can't tell the difference between film and digital.
The difference to me is that I'd have nothing to do with it after taking the film out of the camera in the good old days but nowadays I have to do all the work, maintain and feed the printer expensive inks and so on.
The people who did all the work in the days of film were experts. I'd tell them what I wanted and they'd do it, for a price. I would, now and then, ask them to deal with snapshots from P&S's and they'd amaze me with the quality they could screw out of a negative. Even my son's Cosmic Symbol got this treatment once or twice and gave me a healthy respect for the thing.
Secondly, I wonder how many of us are talking/typing about prints in this thread. If we are comparing a magazine picture with a digital image on a monitor then they are chalk and cheese but not because of the camera and medium but because of how we view it.
And the selection process, starting with the editor deciding on the camera operator and so on right through to the printers deciding on the inks to use in the print run, is so completely different someone downloading a digital picture into a computer at home and looking at it on the (far from) calibrated laptop's screen.
Give your digital to as many experts as the magazine print had and you'd be surprised at the outcome, imo.
It's like the difference between my raw typing now and what got printed after the proof readers and editors had had a go at it.
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
thegman
Mentor
I think this illustrates quite well the divergence of views on the topic, and perhaps that we don't even understand the views of each other.
For me, to say "high MP digital cams put a film image to shame" misses what I thought the thread was about. Sure, a high end digital will show better resolution than 99% of 35mm images, and worse resolution than 99% of medium format or large format images. But is that what we're worried about? Certainly I'm not, for me, going to digital is nothing to do with the technical image quality, which may be better or may be worse, depending on what you buy.
For me, it's more about something slightly undefinable, is it nostalgia, a desire to not "follow", a love of old cameras, an "authenticity" (whatever that is)?
The fact is, I don't know, and I doubt anybody else does either, but I will say with a level of certainty that it's nothing to do with digital putting film to shame or vice versa.
My own feelings are that it's not digital vs. film, it's that my interest is with film, and not with digital. Like I enjoy watching snooker, but not 8 ball pool.
thegman
Mentor
This is so very true. Currently I'm working my way through the Aubrey-Maturin series of books. The world they describe is just not there any more, and has been gone for some time. Of course, the unpleasantness of it is gone to a degree too, but at least we can still go to see the ships, the buildings, and read about the history.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
fact, for me, is, that I do not know why I enjoy film photography and the results I get with film more than digital.
but I do not care
but I do not care
leicapixie
Well-known
what a stunning article!
i am totally dedicated to Photography. It's a must, a calling, a need, compulsion, almost a religion..
Digital as i use it has some very good features, in fact blessings.Some photography, done my way, with P/S Digitals allow me almost infinite depth of field.For social photography, everybody at a table is in focus.Well sharp anyway for a print. Yes! I make or have prints done. I have no faith in long term archival of the computer. Already cards have error, CD's are blank or missing data..read images..The only negatives that ever faded of mine, done by "pro-labs". My 1st negatives shot and processed in the kitchen are perfect. The year was 1960.
Today, images do indeed look all the same.
Digital cameras have no "soul". You use them, they break, tossed out.
Marketing has pushed us to "newer,better more features". We are drowning in technology.The whole digital craft is so bland, industrial and same!
I feel what is missing is "magic". Yes developing a film, in a small tank, each of us with own ideas of time/temperature/dilutions,chemicals choice/agitation/water availability/ all add to MORE than sum of parts.
Using cranky difficult to master cameras like a Deardorf, Hasselblad or Leica made us so aware of what we were doing. If anybody here thinks mentioning those 2 film cameras with a view one is wrong, suggest using them.. Loading a Hasselblad, makes one seek assistants, who load "them" for you! Leica's are pernickety, mean, vengeful and able to bond with your hand, fingers, body and mind. The Digital version is hygienic, clean and dead. No soul. The new shutter, the lousier viewfinders(i Have a M3.) Each "new" Leica boasts more features, more technology and poorer quality, lousier viewfinders and framing. Framing? Has the factory actually tied out the accuracy? Not close, not maybe.. That lack of decent framing, had me running to my Nikon-F,F2,F3 for seeing what i get.
Photo paper a mere ghost of the past. Yes digital paper has more surfaces than people alive, but it ALL looks same. Better poor than none.
Am i Luddite? Yes.
The other night scanning some negatives, i thought about
:CRAFTSMANSHIP:
It almost no longer exists.
i looked at my scans, "craftsmanship" and went to bed laughing..
i am totally dedicated to Photography. It's a must, a calling, a need, compulsion, almost a religion..
Digital as i use it has some very good features, in fact blessings.Some photography, done my way, with P/S Digitals allow me almost infinite depth of field.For social photography, everybody at a table is in focus.Well sharp anyway for a print. Yes! I make or have prints done. I have no faith in long term archival of the computer. Already cards have error, CD's are blank or missing data..read images..The only negatives that ever faded of mine, done by "pro-labs". My 1st negatives shot and processed in the kitchen are perfect. The year was 1960.
Today, images do indeed look all the same.
Digital cameras have no "soul". You use them, they break, tossed out.
Marketing has pushed us to "newer,better more features". We are drowning in technology.The whole digital craft is so bland, industrial and same!
I feel what is missing is "magic". Yes developing a film, in a small tank, each of us with own ideas of time/temperature/dilutions,chemicals choice/agitation/water availability/ all add to MORE than sum of parts.
Using cranky difficult to master cameras like a Deardorf, Hasselblad or Leica made us so aware of what we were doing. If anybody here thinks mentioning those 2 film cameras with a view one is wrong, suggest using them.. Loading a Hasselblad, makes one seek assistants, who load "them" for you! Leica's are pernickety, mean, vengeful and able to bond with your hand, fingers, body and mind. The Digital version is hygienic, clean and dead. No soul. The new shutter, the lousier viewfinders(i Have a M3.) Each "new" Leica boasts more features, more technology and poorer quality, lousier viewfinders and framing. Framing? Has the factory actually tied out the accuracy? Not close, not maybe.. That lack of decent framing, had me running to my Nikon-F,F2,F3 for seeing what i get.
Photo paper a mere ghost of the past. Yes digital paper has more surfaces than people alive, but it ALL looks same. Better poor than none.
Am i Luddite? Yes.
The other night scanning some negatives, i thought about
:CRAFTSMANSHIP:
It almost no longer exists.
i looked at my scans, "craftsmanship" and went to bed laughing..
Photo_Smith
Well-known
You nailed it. Excellent post!
vitaly66
slightly tilted
Agree completely with the OP.
Something else: in my own experience, the more commitment and dedication that is demanded by a particular process, the greater the achievment will be in the end result.
That is to say, outcome is correlated with effort.
Now, by "commitment" I do not mean "spending more money on gear"! Rather this: investing time, patience, study, research, learning, testing, thought, work, hardship, discomfort, "playing", forever exploring, pushing boundaries, and practice practice practice.
By its very nature, the mastery of film processes demands a commitment of its practitioners. Film based photography is "harder" than pushing the button of a digigizmo: slower, more time-consuming, more tedious, prone to error and accident. Yet it is precisely the challenges of film that makes the successes with it all the more satisying and joyful.
And incorporated within the aesthetic of film, all the efforts -- the choices and mastery -- of the photographer can be seen and appreciated.
Now here I will say that, in my own eye, the "best" and most pleasing photographic images are not even made with film at all. For sheer delightful photographic beauty, nothing compares to glass plate!
Something else: in my own experience, the more commitment and dedication that is demanded by a particular process, the greater the achievment will be in the end result.
That is to say, outcome is correlated with effort.
Now, by "commitment" I do not mean "spending more money on gear"! Rather this: investing time, patience, study, research, learning, testing, thought, work, hardship, discomfort, "playing", forever exploring, pushing boundaries, and practice practice practice.
By its very nature, the mastery of film processes demands a commitment of its practitioners. Film based photography is "harder" than pushing the button of a digigizmo: slower, more time-consuming, more tedious, prone to error and accident. Yet it is precisely the challenges of film that makes the successes with it all the more satisying and joyful.
And incorporated within the aesthetic of film, all the efforts -- the choices and mastery -- of the photographer can be seen and appreciated.
Now here I will say that, in my own eye, the "best" and most pleasing photographic images are not even made with film at all. For sheer delightful photographic beauty, nothing compares to glass plate!
hepcat
Former PH, USN
You are absolutely correct in that there is still more than enough good stuff to see... and photograph. I think it's just different stuff in a different era than it was in the grand days of Coltrane, Ginsberg and Howard Johnson. People today, in general, seem more harsh and distant and are less trusting. It seems we're all busier doing 'stuff' without really accomplishing much. Mass entertainment seems to be about being destructive and watching other people's misery rather than enjoying other people and being creative. We don't know our neighbors any more. The world's heroes used to have real lives, and were approachable; now they live in gilded cages.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not glamorizing the cold-war era. The global threats were great. There were real hardships for many around the world. Hatred and fear were pervasive... but for many, on a personal level, those threats seemed distant and not so immediate as they feel today. The post-war years were also a time of building, moving forward, and of hope. The photographers of those years inspired people to dream... inspired kids to hop on a Grayhound and go to NYC to seek their fortunes and to be able to listen to John Coltrane live or drink coffee with Allen Ginsberg.
Our world today is a very different place than that world that we saw in the great photo magazines of the 1960s. I think I mourn the passing of the Jazz Age...
Sometimes I wonder if that isn't part of the film-digital divide; if folks who use film are holding on to it because they're preserving some of that Jazz Age feel.
I began in the film era too. Most of the photography I look at is film because most of photography's history was on film. However, there just aren't enough differences between film and digital photography for me to make a distinction. It's all just photography. Content and framing matter more to me than some grain and a little more tonal range.
Please explain.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
...and tonality and curve shape. Yes, a great digi shot will beat a bad film shot every time. But depending on the subject matter and the photographer's intentions and mastery of the medium it is also possible that film will wipe the floor with digi, or (rather more rarely) vice versa.
Cheers,
R.
Of course. I guess my personal feeling is that there is a lot more similarities between the two than differences.
robklurfield
eclipse
I've got to agree with Roger here. If the OP were done with photography would have taken the time and care to draft such an impassioned statement? I think not. I hear yearning in this.
thegman
Mentor
I had never heard of Thomas Hawk, just looked at his portfolio now. I must say I find a lot of the photos quite striking and I'd be happy to have taken a lot of them. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on whether his "million photos" plan is a good one or not. What I will say is this: If a regular on this forum posted the same portfolio as his own work, most people here would be oooh-ing and aahhh-ing over how great it was, even more so if he'd traded his Canon EOS 5 for an M9 + Noctilux. It's easy just to presume he's sh*t just because he's all over Flickr, but the work itself is still worth a look.
There is no one right way to work with photography thankfully.