Back to Basics-Searching for the Essentials

A magazine column I once followed was titled "Elements of our Enthusiasm", and I always loved that title. I strive to hang onto the sense of endless photographic possibilities that I had when I was given my first real camera. And lately when I've been in that zone, the exact camera hasn't seemed to matter much: 35, 40 or 50 mm lens seemed to be a good start, maybe a range of apertures and shutter speeds at my disposal, whether manually selected or chosen by AI. The other week I was out shooting with a camera (Zenit 412) and film (Ferrania P30) which had never particularly "clicked" with me. But at some point, the combo began to sing sweetly. At other times this year, the magic combo has been a Minolta Hi-Matic F loaded with Kodak Ektar, or a digital camera equipped with 21st-century wonder-optics.

If you're wondering why I have so many cameras if I can get into the creative zone with any number of them, you're not alone. Although some "spark joy", there does seem to be a maximum level of joy that can be sparked, and I may have gone beyond the peak of that particular bell curve.

Sold another camera today, but got another two incoming (a twofer deal!). But I'm not done selling stuff yet. Over the past decade or so, I've explored many film-photo roads not previously taken, and discovered that not all lead to anything special.
 
I recall an exhibition of Man Ray's photography that included small contact prints of about 2x3 inches mounted on large boards with large mattes. They were beautiful little gems, much more impressive for the presentation. Getting close to view the photos was an intimate experience, more like a personal showing than a stand-back-and-look gallery event.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
One really disastrous bit of fallout from the 70's recognition of photography as a "fine art" (whatever that means) is that photography then had to compete on the gallery walls with paintings. The average print size quickly grew exponentially, to the detriment, in my opinion, of the experience of most photographic imagery. Once upon a time, and in my memory, 11x14 was considered a large print! Bigger is not always better.
Click to expand...
That is why the photo book is the best medium for looking at photography in many ways.
 
I agree that most photos (at least most not shot on large format film) look best printed at reasonable sizes. I think the trend towards larger prints also partially comes from the fact that at least in the U.S., the average house size has increased dramatically in recent years. "…the average size of a new single-family home ballooned - from just 909 square feet in 1949 to 2,480 square feet in 2021." See The 2022 American Home Size Index. Certainly, ceiling heights have increased as well, with 10' plus ceilings becoming common in the past 20–25 years. Big rooms with high ceilings demand larger artwork.

My wife informs me that the trend in interior design/home decorating is small prints matted in large frames. She just ordered a set of 25″x25″ frames matted for 11″x11″ prints. This is an odd size print, but I found one lab that offers it as a standard size.
 
AAlfano said:
I agree that most photos (at least most not shot on large format film) look best printed at reasonable sizes. I think the trend towards larger prints also partially comes from the fact that at least in the U.S., the average house size has increased dramatically in recent years. "…the average size of a new single-family home ballooned - from just 909 square feet in 1949 to 2,480 square feet in 2021." See The 2022 American Home Size Index. Certainly, ceiling heights have increased as well, with 10' plus ceilings becoming common in the past 20–25 years. Big rooms with high ceilings demand larger artwork.

My wife informs me that the trend in interior design/home decorating is small prints matted in large frames. She just ordered a set of 25″x25″ frames matted for 11″x11″ prints. This is an odd size print, but I found one lab that offers it as a standard size.
Click to expand...
11x11" is not particularly odd if the negative is 6x6cm ..... and is printed on 11x14" paper
 
Deardorff38 said:
11x11" is not particularly odd if the negative is 6x6cm ..... and is printed on 11x14" paper
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're correct. To be more clear, perhaps I should have said it's fairly uncommon for online digital print services to offer 11″x11″ as a standard print size. Sadly, I don't have a darkroom to print optically.
 
My printer does not work anymore. Fine. I cannot match what the printing services offer in quality even though I could beat them on price. LOL
 
Deardorff38 said:
No batteries in the "flaky film Leica" ;) either...

30049532918_22af865aa8_c.jpg
Click to expand...
No batteries in my Retina 1b, nor in my Canon L1, there's a battery in the Nikomat, and the Luna Pro F. I usually use the Luna Pro to meter, or my Gossen Pilot. .
 
dave lackey said:
Simple living is simply living. I am having as much fun with my inexpensive Nikkormat FTN and a modest “light sucker” as I could ask for:
View attachment 4824261
Click to expand...
I love my example, a Japan Domestic Market Nikomat. Mine has a period correct 50 mm/1.4 Nikkor. It delivers superb images consistently. It's meter even still works though a bit jumpy like it's owner. The wheelchair's motor assist uses more battery than the photographer otherwise does.
 
stephen_lumsden said:
I think , in his book, sculpting in Time, Tarkovsky, recalls numerous people asking him what his films are about. He says he is more concerned with the feelings they evoke.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read the book, first part now. Need a few days to “digest” it!
But I like the idea about the feelings, it is what I try to evoke with photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom