JP Owens
Well-known
David is the hardest working 70 year old I've ever met. He's always on a plane going somewhere, as often as not to a workshop or some other teaching venue. The man simply refuses to become cynical, and continually produces new work. Amazing guy.
leicapixie
Well-known
I went to see DAH Photos of Rio2.
Amazing work.Yes different from Kodachrome days.
I have not been able to reproduce that "look".
Yet digital has given me, the possibilities of color,
the way I have always wanted!
I agree that DAH, Gibson and Alex Webb pix are not same as the stuff shot on film.
Not even close.
Worse?
Better?
No, simply different.
I do prefer look of their film images..
I really like David's openness of method and technique.
The use of D800 may be one of safety..
It's big and very expensive.
Looking forward to more "Rio2" images.
Amazing work.Yes different from Kodachrome days.
I have not been able to reproduce that "look".
Yet digital has given me, the possibilities of color,
the way I have always wanted!
I agree that DAH, Gibson and Alex Webb pix are not same as the stuff shot on film.
Not even close.
Worse?
Better?
No, simply different.
I do prefer look of their film images..
I really like David's openness of method and technique.
The use of D800 may be one of safety..
It's big and very expensive.
Looking forward to more "Rio2" images.
codester80
A Touch of Light
This same conversation happened in painting. Oil painters lamented the loss of texture and the personal imprint of brush strokes in paintings when done with acrylics. The acrylics crowd saw the imperfections, textures, brush strokes, and hassle of waiting for the oil paint to dry as a mudding the final image and hampering creativity. Film will always exhibit more "soul" than a digital image, as has been expressed elegantly several times on this thread. Digital is quicker, artificial, and convenient. These considerations have won out for the most part in the quickened pace of the 21st Century. There is no saying if film or digital is better. It all depends on the eye of the beholder.
I think it is time for photographers to realize there is no right answer. People will split into three camps: film-based photographer, digital-based photographers, and hybrid photographers who switch seamlessly from one medium to another. I personally hope to see a day when each of these camps turn their attention internally and focus on doing the best work they can in their medium instead of sniping over comparisons of the merits of their chosen medium.
With this being said, I tend to agree that DAH has lost a step since going digital (and perhaps since turning 70, this man consistently produced for longer than most living photographers, and produces a lot it. How he hasn't burned out amazes me!). This is nothing to say of his skill. I've idolized the man since I first picked up a camera. I think it's a matter of DAH's vision and approach being suited to film, as it should considering he spent the majority of his professional life working in that medium. His style is direct, gritty, and understated. Film is the better medium for expressing these aesthetics. Digital by it's very nature is manufactured, processed, manipulated, and slick. These are not words I would associate with DAH (or Gibson or Alex Webb or Allard).
And with that I will climb off my soapbox and retreat to the film camp (if they'll have me).
I think it is time for photographers to realize there is no right answer. People will split into three camps: film-based photographer, digital-based photographers, and hybrid photographers who switch seamlessly from one medium to another. I personally hope to see a day when each of these camps turn their attention internally and focus on doing the best work they can in their medium instead of sniping over comparisons of the merits of their chosen medium.
With this being said, I tend to agree that DAH has lost a step since going digital (and perhaps since turning 70, this man consistently produced for longer than most living photographers, and produces a lot it. How he hasn't burned out amazes me!). This is nothing to say of his skill. I've idolized the man since I first picked up a camera. I think it's a matter of DAH's vision and approach being suited to film, as it should considering he spent the majority of his professional life working in that medium. His style is direct, gritty, and understated. Film is the better medium for expressing these aesthetics. Digital by it's very nature is manufactured, processed, manipulated, and slick. These are not words I would associate with DAH (or Gibson or Alex Webb or Allard).
And with that I will climb off my soapbox and retreat to the film camp (if they'll have me).
willie_901
Veteran
Film is not the better medium. Neither is digital. They are just two different media choices.
Film is manufactured, it also processed and manipulated. It has been for many decades.
I have no idea what "slick" means.
Besides, unless a photographer's work flow is 100% analog (including viewing and display) then there is a transition from the continuous analog domain to the discontinuous digital domain. The fundamental flaws inherent in modeling continuous phenomenon with discontinuous data come into play.
Because the a digital workflow is convenient, the is an abundance of unaesthetic work. The trivial effort required to self-publish sloppy, unsophisticated work means discovering work with aesthetic excellence is frustrating.
However, just because we happen to be inundated with poorly photographed and rendered digital images and these images are as common and easy to find as sand on a beach, does not mean the digital images are inherently aesthetically deficient.
How many photographers could survive and complete eschew any digitization of their work? If survival is irrelevant, is availability to the largest possible viewing audience important?
I realize some people create just for the pleasure of creating and authentically have no interest if their work is ever enjoyed by another human being. Good for them. Everyone else must deal with the digital reality of the 21st century.
JP Owens
Well-known
Producing significant, enduring images, whether digital or analog, is hard to do. "Hard to do" is not something that attracts many folks in the 21st century. And why would it when you can get 20,000 "likes" for a clever smartphone snapshot of your cat sleeping. 
codester80
A Touch of Light
A careful read of my post would reveal I too believe film and digital are two different media choices, just as oil paint and acrylic paint is to the world of an artist.
What I was alluding to is the opinion of some that DAH and others newer work in digital photography doesn't seem to have the same impact/feeling as their earlier work may be related to the fact their personal style or working method is better suited to film as a media. I think most would agree film and digital have different and recognizable traits and those traits can work for or against you. Perhaps this is the case with DAH or Alex Webb, as examples. Being that digital is the only way a professional photographer is able to stay successful, I think some are lamenting (as I am) that people like DAH or Alex Webb must shoehorn their way into digital (and let's be real, better than most of us) when film may be the better medium for their work.
As for manipulation and such, it is true both media are able to be manipulated. I was merely suggesting digital, by its very design, is intended to be manipulated, and in real terms must be manipulated to achieve an optimal end point. Film, while it can be manipulated, by its very design, makes it much more difficult or inconvenient to achieve the same level of manipulation as digital. Slide film being the obvious candidate for being the most difficult of films to manipulate and thus a more "straight" approach to image capture. Your mileage may vary but I personally try to achieve the optimal image at time of capture in film because I fear the extra work later on in correcting those errors in a wet darkroom. Digital gives me more confidence that I don't have to nail the capture while in the field and have some wiggle room to adjust for errors later. That's not to say I still try to achieve the optimal file in the field but that safety net does play in the back of the mind when shooting digitally (again YMMV).
Finally, by slick I mean digital does not have the same natural imperfections or grain film has. Digital is capable of producing very smooth, very slick looking photographs without any grain/noise. Some refer to this look as "plasticky". I like to call it slick. It's an aesthetic look which is a photographer's choice just as grittier look of using Tri-X is the choice of others. Neither is better but sometimes a photographer may find their work profits by one aesthetic over another.
paulfish4570
Veteran
i like these photos ...
MCTuomey
Veteran
Finer degrees of difference notwithstanding (slide film v B&W negative film v CCD digital v CMOS digital, etc.), both capture media support signficant post-exposure "manipulation," as you say. I've never felt that this is a significant point of differentiation between film and digital capture, other than personal preference as to whether one prefers manipulation in a darkroom or at a monitor on a desk.
Tech Pan could be said to appear "slick" versus Tri-X, if the criterion for slickness is lack of grain. Digital prints or files that appear plasticky overall I'd say may not have been processed optimally. Some digital B&W conversions and color work where the photographer intentionally reduces microcontrast to de-emphasize detail (like skin imperfections or wrinkles) might be termed plasticky, but like you allude this is a conscious aesthetic decision often based on client requirements.
Generally, as in Salgado's digital work, one can process digital files in ways that mimic film results, and suffer little stylistic drift, including techniques like wet printing directly or producing negatives from the digital file. No, it's not the same, but it presents a lot of options to the digital photographer after capture who's forced by the marketplace to be able to provide very short turn-around.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Leica Pixie, I think I love you,
Not because you're from my,
Home town, not because of what,
You say, though I like what,
You have to say, though I might,
Disagree, though less often,
Than I don't, I go bong when I look,
At how your words fall upon,
The landscape of the page and,
Bloom, turning into little flowers that,
Scent the air.....with poetry
Not because you're from my,
Home town, not because of what,
You say, though I like what,
You have to say, though I might,
Disagree, though less often,
Than I don't, I go bong when I look,
At how your words fall upon,
The landscape of the page and,
Bloom, turning into little flowers that,
Scent the air.....with poetry
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Bill Allard was up at the Calgary Stampede this year with what looks like a micro 4/3. Anyone wanna have a go at him
for many photographers, The Photograph and content within are sacrosanct and technical perfection is secondary. otherwise its a sharp, well processed photo of…nothing
+100
Bill uses, among other things, a GF1. Little camera from Panasonic. It works great, fast AF and great little lenses. The 14mm 2.5 is superb.
Digital doesn't "do anything" to anybody. If a photographer is lazy, it won't be the choice of medium that reflects that. It'll be the half-baked or non-existent ideas that betray the malingerer.
Film doesn't "do" or "make" anything either - it's just another choice just as soapstone or copper or bronze is to the sculptor or symphony or virtual studio is to the musician.
All media supply constraints. Usually when good work is done, the constraints are observed as a secondary consideration. When truly exceptional work is done, often, though not always, a constraint turns into something else.
As a final observation, photography as a process in art-making has been with us for long enough that if people are going to comment on the aesthetic value of the work of others, it behooves them to be at least aware of some of the basic history, not of the process so much as of the practitioners of all the visual arts - not just photography.
The problem is that knowing the history of the camera is not the same as knowing the history of the visual arts and thus some of the language. It doesn't mean one can't use the camera as a way in, but the camera, the film, all of the tools, are not "art", are not "seeing".
The human consciousness is the part that sees. The same way that if someone holds forth in a language you do not speak, if someone draws a wiring diagram of an innovative circuit on a napkin, we would not describe them as deficient because we don't understand them or we find fault with the drafting of the schematic.
Harvey sees. There is a reason he's done so many NG features. There is a reason he is part of Magnum. His work packs a wallop. There's a reason that Allard defended him rather loudly at a juried competition where Harvey came in second. I believe Harvey was in his senior year in school. Allard grabbed one of Harvey's prints and held it up and said something to the effect that "This is the guy who should have won."
If someone can't see Harvey's vision it in the rushes? Well, maybe they just don't understand his shorthand or the idea described.
As Jay Maisel often says as he's handing out assignments to his students, "... I don't want to see the 'fine hand of the photographer' in your pictures either!"
Means content must overwhelm the form. Don't get sucked into looking at the napkin instead of the diagram.
kuzano
Veteran
Very good. That's all well said... and let me add...
Very good. That's all well said... and let me add...
I personally don't think you can make the same pictures with small square dots that you can with a crystalline structure. If that's true, digital will never catch up with film. Think about it for a while.
Am I biased toward film, or away from digital... Damn right!
Very good. That's all well said... and let me add...
Somewhat.
I've owned canon 5Ds and expect to buy a 5D3 soon. But, anything that comes out of it will be processed toward an analog feel and I won't graypoint the white balance unless I'm doing studio stuff. I'll use digital for getting certain types of work done. But I also just re acquired a fuji ga645, and will re acquire a mamiya rz before I get back into the 5D. I love the look of film. I do have a very strong prejudice against digital as a beginning collector. I have no interest in photographs that were shot on digital and very little interest in non darkroom prints.
I really believe photographers are getting lazy. When well known bloggers are talking about shooting professional assignments with m4/3 cams, and forums are rife with complaints about dSLRs being "too big," I think there's a ridiculous sense of tech entitlement. It's more about 'what can I get away with,' and less of a commitment to the art.
Maybe more importantly, the choice between digital and film is just an illustrator of tastes. Maybe the people who did such beautiful work in the past were only doing it incidentally, and the effects and results they achieved were only due to successes found while using the only tools they had available. Fact is, most photographers don't really have great taste..... Look at how many of those khaki pocketed vests were sold....
Clearly, there are aspects of photography that are more important to me than to other photographers. For some people, what's important is being there and the composition. After all, there are a lot of people who regard the topic of bokeh as ridiculous. I feel that everything in the frame is important. Some only care about what they were focusing on..... So, for some, grain and texture were never matters to be considered except as artifacts to be avoided. I regard them as critical components.
So, am I anti-digital? Yes and no. At this point, it's closer to Yes. I'll use it, but I place a far greater value on images made on film.
I personally don't think you can make the same pictures with small square dots that you can with a crystalline structure. If that's true, digital will never catch up with film. Think about it for a while.
Am I biased toward film, or away from digital... Damn right!
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
@ Oscuro:
With all due respect to a well-stated response, I think you're wrong.
It seems like you are suggesting that being a 'good photographer' is wholly about the vision and the decision. I would say that there is still more to the equation. If Photographer X produced beautiful work using a specific recipe of lens, film, developer, and printing for a number of years, and that formula, in combination with his 'eye' is what led to his success, it is not incumbent upon the viewer or 'fan' of his work to then also accept and revere his new work in an entirely different medium.
Let's take Ralph Gibson's Deus Ex Machina. If every one of those images had been made with a Leica Monochrom, and processed with the same tonality but without any grain (simulation), it seems as if you're saying that work should be as highly regarded as the grainy work. I disagree. All of the photographer's decisions and efforts would be the same at the moment of exposure, but the results would be different. I would suggest that the loss of that specific bit of 'character' would be the difference in how well the work is received.
It's not at all about 'understanding the idea described.' It is about seeing the whole of the work and not accepting that the 'greatness' of a piece of art (considered as a component) can be extricated and still maintain the greatness. Viewing a photograph of a painting is not the same experience as viewing the painting. That texture matters. The 'art' of the thing very well CAN be the sum of the napkin AND the diagram. We aren't talking about the napkin as being only the conveyance device for the 'information (diagram),' are we? A watercolor is a combination of how the pigment interacts with the paper. An oil painting is partially about the buildup of paint on canvas - those brush strokes matter. They aren't just the means.
Not appreciating the nuance is to ignore a great bit of the artist's participation. No one is suggesting that the artist is any different when he shots with film or when he shoots with digital. But the results have to be assessed independently and the results can't factor in a reputation. And the concept or idea still requires execution. ALL of the execution has to be seen.
With all due respect to a well-stated response, I think you're wrong.
It seems like you are suggesting that being a 'good photographer' is wholly about the vision and the decision. I would say that there is still more to the equation. If Photographer X produced beautiful work using a specific recipe of lens, film, developer, and printing for a number of years, and that formula, in combination with his 'eye' is what led to his success, it is not incumbent upon the viewer or 'fan' of his work to then also accept and revere his new work in an entirely different medium.
Let's take Ralph Gibson's Deus Ex Machina. If every one of those images had been made with a Leica Monochrom, and processed with the same tonality but without any grain (simulation), it seems as if you're saying that work should be as highly regarded as the grainy work. I disagree. All of the photographer's decisions and efforts would be the same at the moment of exposure, but the results would be different. I would suggest that the loss of that specific bit of 'character' would be the difference in how well the work is received.
It's not at all about 'understanding the idea described.' It is about seeing the whole of the work and not accepting that the 'greatness' of a piece of art (considered as a component) can be extricated and still maintain the greatness. Viewing a photograph of a painting is not the same experience as viewing the painting. That texture matters. The 'art' of the thing very well CAN be the sum of the napkin AND the diagram. We aren't talking about the napkin as being only the conveyance device for the 'information (diagram),' are we? A watercolor is a combination of how the pigment interacts with the paper. An oil painting is partially about the buildup of paint on canvas - those brush strokes matter. They aren't just the means.
Not appreciating the nuance is to ignore a great bit of the artist's participation. No one is suggesting that the artist is any different when he shots with film or when he shoots with digital. But the results have to be assessed independently and the results can't factor in a reputation. And the concept or idea still requires execution. ALL of the execution has to be seen.
KM-25
Well-known
DAH had some really great stuff up at Look3, some born of film, some of Leica M9 and MM and some of the XT-1 and X100. I still favor his early color work the most, but I'll admit there were some really great color shots from his Book-zine "Based on a True Story" as well.
The piece on the lady divers in Korea was really, really good, most of it I had not seen before, all in black and white from the Fuji's.
Had I not seen these works up on the walls at 30x40 and larger like I did, I would still be 100% pining for the likes of "Cuba" and "Divided Soul".
About Bill Allard, listen to his interview on the podcast called "The Candid Frame"...interesting insight into some of these insanely great color transparency shooters that are still making the transition to digital.
On that note, listen to Mary Ellen Mark too....that one seriously pulled on my heart strings. One night at the Paramount Theatre they showed her in action for a TV piece being done, it was to be two episodes...she passed away before the second one was filmed...she was doing amazing work right up to the very last moments of her life. Mary was a staunch film user and likely would have stayed that way...
The piece on the lady divers in Korea was really, really good, most of it I had not seen before, all in black and white from the Fuji's.
Had I not seen these works up on the walls at 30x40 and larger like I did, I would still be 100% pining for the likes of "Cuba" and "Divided Soul".
About Bill Allard, listen to his interview on the podcast called "The Candid Frame"...interesting insight into some of these insanely great color transparency shooters that are still making the transition to digital.
On that note, listen to Mary Ellen Mark too....that one seriously pulled on my heart strings. One night at the Paramount Theatre they showed her in action for a TV piece being done, it was to be two episodes...she passed away before the second one was filmed...she was doing amazing work right up to the very last moments of her life. Mary was a staunch film user and likely would have stayed that way...
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and think about it. You raise some interesting and valid points and also, I believe (though I may be wrong), miss others.
Yes, to a degree - a very large degree -it is about decision and vision. Look at d'Agata's work in Cambodia. But certainly not to the complete exclusion of form. That's not possible. How do we explain the American, Jay Maisel, in his transition? From my perspective, his shift from Kodachrome to Nikon digital, required only that he learn the new tool's requirements. His vision remained, by his own words, and the observation of others well acquainted with his work, intact.
I did not suggest that there should be a "momentum of acceptance", if you will. I'm saying that one should look very closely for the content, with the form not irrelevant but secondary. Secondary, but not irrelevant. This requires a separate context for each work rather than a generalization.
Of course Mr. Gibson's work would be different if he shot it using an MM. That's my point, actually. He would be forced, or perhaps inclined (I must apologize, English is not my first language), to regard his subject, consciously or otherwise, differently, depending on the tools he was using. As a shooter of Tri-X (I believe), he is used to tonal breadth that is simply not available in digital, even with the Monochrome. The light, the shadow, and the transition - the variegation between the two - would need to be treated differently. This is an example of the inherent difference imposed by selection of specific media. With internalization of the media, this process, on the part of the artist, becomes intuitive.
Yes, and no. When I was very young, because of my social, geographic, and economic milieu, I was not able to see Vermeer's work in person, but only through books. Well-produced books, but books nonetheless. The effect was profound. Similarly, with Caravaggio, even as a child, I was riveted. I could not breathe the first time I saw a reproduction of the Conversion of St. Paul or the Crucifixion of St. Peter. (I will allow some long-dormant genetic memory as agency despite being raised an atheist.)
Regardless, the brush strokes are barely, if at all, visible. Indeed, when I saw the actual works many years later, the works were as moving but sufficiently distant that the brushstrokes were as invisible. Vision, decision, and yes, rendition. However the works functioned at a distance sufficient to render brush strokes irrelevant.
Perhaps it is my awkwardness with semantic subtleties that leads me to believe that, in fact, there was suggestion that the artist's work was different depending on media chosen.
I respectfully disagree with the last sentence, and request clarification of the penultimate.
With regard to the last: Much of the work of a photographer is reductive - for example, the removal of subject matter through the careful placement of the frame. What has been excluded may never be known by the viewer. Thus the result of a subset (?) of what we call execution, in this case, occurs without the awareness of the viewer.
I do not suggest that execution/rendition is to be totally disregarded. But do you listen to Eric Clapton? Or Robbie Robertson? Or Charlie Parker? Or Mick Jagger? Sinatra sang out of tune and retarded the phrasing so much that it became a "thing". He owed that to Billie Holliday and Louis Armstrong, neither of whom could sing bel canto yet could deliver a song more powerfully than perhaps the ears of someone with more rigid expectations of technique would be prepared to accept.
Amy Winehouse could barely stand up. Yet, her version of Body and Soul with Tony Bennett is nonpareil.
So I believe that execution/rendition is an important aspect, yes, but not necessarily in the way that the technicals would have us believe.
KM-25
Well-known
Quite the gooey retort going on there....
In my opinion....for what that is worth, you can't make someone like something they don't by explaining the deep dive, around the lunch table at the MOMA style banter. So while somewhat of an interesting read, when brought down to its utter essence, everything in life is simply subjective.
In my opinion....for what that is worth, you can't make someone like something they don't by explaining the deep dive, around the lunch table at the MOMA style banter. So while somewhat of an interesting read, when brought down to its utter essence, everything in life is simply subjective.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Regarding "gooey" do you mean elasticity in language?
You are quite correct, sir, in that one cannot force an appreciation. It would be better to have the photos in front of us and trace their visual heritages using other works. Not to force "liking" but simply to connect to the larger language of visual representation.
But subjectivity is informed and conditioned by many factors much like journalism departments training persons in various disciplines. When I was a schoolboy I didn't know what terms like gerund, case, infinitive, etc., meant. But I learned these things and it made my appreciation of language more complete.
Subjectivity is an internally formed view, yes. But it is all about personal perspective, which is arguably the result of everything else that that person has taken in over the course of their lifetime.
To the original point, I merely suggest, respectfully, that the work not be dismissed on the basis of "technicalities". That it may not be to an individual's taste is of course assumed.
KM-25
Well-known
Perhaps, but not just you and not in a bad way either, it is still engaging. The reason I mentioned Bill's interview on The Candid Frame is that he refers to several points of the different technicalities in terms of how it can affect vision or style if you will.
In one such point, it was made that other than seeing Polaroids on site with complex lighting, photographers for the Geographic would often go weeks if not months without seeing the results of their work. So not only did they have to trust that things were technically working ok, but that their vision was too. And that vision was given very firm ground to stand on with films like Kodachrome and Fujichrome. The results are styles built upon crescendos of color, a visual climax that in my opinion, shows a true mastery of light and color that no other medium can allow such authorship of...because with the digital medium, the options before, during and after the shots are made are almost infinite.
During his interview with Kathy Ryan at Look3, David Alan Harvey was asked by an audience member during the Q&A if he wanted to go back to Cuba given the changes afoot. He replied yes, but he would likely shoot in black and white, because he had already shot it in color. I found that comment distinctly interesting given how powerful his work in color of the place is.
I plan to take a couple of M film bodies and about 70 rolls of Fuji Provia 400X to Cuba later this year. While it will be hard to resist the images of Harvey and Webb in my mind, I will try my best to find my own voice visually speaking...because it is a combination of changing times, colors and light that make me want to go there and the freedom of working with one medium that does not pop up on the back of the camera want to take film.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
@KM-25
Sorry for the delay. Things got very busy.
Your remarks, and DAH's, reference something that was pounded into my head a long time ago, and has been borne out in personal experience: one is subject to the medium.
Though the vast majority of my work is in colour, I have worked in B&W. When doing it digitally, I set up the camera to display the jpegs in B&W. The RAW file, such as I ever use it, is, of course, full colour. But I don't see it when I'm working.
It may not work for very many people (I understand that McNally uses a similar technique), but I find that it lets me solidify the state of mind that I seem to need when I'm working in monochrome.
Conversely, one might also shut off the review function on their digital camera. I have no dog in the film vs. digital debate except to admit that ever since I started in this racket some 40-plus years ago, I hated film. Not what one could do with it, but rather its frailty, fragility, and general vulnerability. Never liked the darkroom either.
That's just me and it runs somewhat counter to the "subject to the media" remark. I have a friend who is a glass-blower. Apparently when we were married she was already dying of work-related respiratory diseases. Now, THAT'S being subject to the media.
I too, find this conversation interesting.
Sorry for the delay. Things got very busy.
Your remarks, and DAH's, reference something that was pounded into my head a long time ago, and has been borne out in personal experience: one is subject to the medium.
Though the vast majority of my work is in colour, I have worked in B&W. When doing it digitally, I set up the camera to display the jpegs in B&W. The RAW file, such as I ever use it, is, of course, full colour. But I don't see it when I'm working.
It may not work for very many people (I understand that McNally uses a similar technique), but I find that it lets me solidify the state of mind that I seem to need when I'm working in monochrome.
Conversely, one might also shut off the review function on their digital camera. I have no dog in the film vs. digital debate except to admit that ever since I started in this racket some 40-plus years ago, I hated film. Not what one could do with it, but rather its frailty, fragility, and general vulnerability. Never liked the darkroom either.
That's just me and it runs somewhat counter to the "subject to the media" remark. I have a friend who is a glass-blower. Apparently when we were married she was already dying of work-related respiratory diseases. Now, THAT'S being subject to the media.
I too, find this conversation interesting.