For me photos have no value

[Godfrey]

I'll go out on a biased limb and say that this is a digital photography malaise. Disregarding artistic/aesthetic merit totally, digital photography can take very little effort to achieve an inkjet print. Photography done with a manual film camera, develop film, wet darkroom print takes more effort and is potentially more rewarding.

Both digital and film photography can only be as good as the photographer's eye of course. I'm only comparing the process and how the process requiring greater effort can be more satisfying.

Of what use is an effortless hobby?

Sorry, but I disagree completely. A quality print takes thought, skill, and effort whether produced with digital capture and image processing, or using film and darkroom. I'm just as "proud" of my digital prints as I once was of my darkroom prints. But ...

My digital prints are invariably higher quality and more deserving of pride.

G

 

[kbg32]

I am in agreement with Godfrey. Those that are quick to put down digital, really do not understand how parallel the process is compared to film.

You might have your preference, but one is not "better" then the other. Nikes are no better then Pumas, etc., etc., etc..... Canons no better then Nikons. Just different.

 

[pagpow]

This thread reminds me of the chef Giada De Laurentiis.

She likes to cook, but refuses to eat.

Verdad? How do you know?

 

[FrankS]

Words have meaning. You have to read my post carefully. What Godfrey is disagreeing with, is not what I wrote. Kbg is also reading inaccurately. I didn't say film was better. I stated that a digital print CAN be made with less effort than a film/wet darkroom print. That is a qualified statement. It's my opinion that satisfaction is derived from effort. So, it is possible to be unsatisfied with digital photography because it can take little effort.

No where am I saying that you can't put a lot of effort and gain much satisfaction with digital photography, I think that's where people project.

 

[fireblade]

I have become totally immune to criticism of my photos. This lack of not defending my own work is either due to extreme overconfidence or indifference, but whatever it might be, I won't blink if someone were to absolutely trash the photos I have made or make.

For me photos have no value; therefore, I see that to defend something that has no value is a waste of time. By value I mean, monetary as well as aesthetic value.

Unless its not family photos, I can repeat a shot in most cases and even if I can't it does not bother me. I always think, how would I react if the hard drive that holds my photos dies and interestingly, there is no sense of worry, I can delete all the photos I have taken so far and start afresh.

The question is then, why do I bother with photography when I have no interest in photos? The answer is that taking photos has become a habit and a habit that I enjoy, but photos themselves hold no interest for me whatsoever.

Most men have endured Coitus Interruptus.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

It is a difficult concept for some to grasp, how can someone only enjoy taking photos without any regard for the photos afterwards?

I wasn't like that. I used to spend a lot of time on post-processing, editing and so on, but at some point it occurred to me that I really disliked editing and post-processing, but more importantly, they did not give value to my photos.

After a lot of soul-searching and struggle (many threads in this forum), I realized that I enjoy the walk, the shoot, that's it. The photos are there and I treat them all the same, I don't edit or post-process, I leave them as they are.

Film. Well to me that is another illusion in trying to make something that essentially has becoming meaningless into something meaningful by bringing the discipline, the process and basically the extra work for the same stuff. Film is for those who care for photos, my affliction, I don't care for photos.

As I said, photos have no value for me and I say that very sincerely. I don't look at photos at all. Still photos bore me, even the works that I used to admire. I watch video and that satisfies me visually, although I have no interest in shooting video.


Am I a sign of the decline and fall of still photography? A photographer with no interest in photos he takes. Maybe.

I get it. You are not interested.

 

[rogazilla]

I can relate to OP. There is a period of time (2009-2010) where I take my camera everywhere and take tons of photos but I leave them on the memory card. I stopped post edit them and stop posting them for family or friends to see. I would not go so far as to say that I don't think my photo means nothing to me but it was something to do when I go on a trip or meet up with friends. I enjoy the process of framing and seeing the moment.

The truth is post edit and lack of knowledge in editing software really frustrated me. Growing up shooting film, I never had to do post edit... (I never learned how to develope film, my father would always take it to the lab for me). White balance frustrate me, color, contrast those things frustrate me. I am not someone who develop a process and have a certain look that I love or try to recreate. I grew up shooting whatever color film that's cheapeast on the shelf and have always been more drawn to the subject and the composition. (Color, BW certainlt have impact on image but since I didnt have control of it, I still don't really have a particular look that I just love).

Back to topic. I posted a lot of shots on facebook, friends will like and comment but some of the shots where I absolutely love but not getting reaction from posting on internet led me to a point telling myself that I am just taking snap shots. they are not worth anyone else's time.

Until 2013, my daughter was born. I have gone back to look at my pictures the last 2 years many many times. There are pictures and memories I started to look at from 2005 when I had my first digital camera. I digged up the boxes of developed pictures from 1990's. These are memories and moments of what I see in life. The photo itself may have no value to anyone and I don't need to defend it to others. Because they are priceless to me.

 

[Godfrey]

Words have meaning. You have to read my post carefully. What Godfrey is disagreeing with, is not what I wrote. Kbg is also reading inaccurately. I didn't say film was better. I stated that a digital print CAN be made with less effort than a film/wet darkroom print. That is a qualified statement. It's my opinion that satisfaction is derived from effort. So, it is possible to be unsatisfied with digital photography because it can take little effort.

No where am I saying that you can't put a lot of effort and gain much satisfaction with digital photography, I think that's where people project.

No. I am disagreeing with EXACTLY what you wrote ... I quoted and bolded it. And what I've bolded above in red is another bit that is exactly what I disagree with.

- I used to make 25 8x10" prints in the wet darkroom in an hour, every week, for our high school newspaper. They were crappy prints, but adequate for the purpose. That's also just about the fastest I can make 25 crappy 8x10" prints with my computer and printer setup in an hour. So I can make the same number of crappy prints in the darkroom that I can with my inkjet printer, with just about the same level of effort.

- In the darkroom, it would take me three to four hours to produce one exhibition ready print 16x20 print. Now, with the computer and inkjet printer, it often takes me just about the same time to produce one exhibition ready 13x19 print. The only advantage to the digital print process is that if I produce one in three to four hours, and I need more immediately, I can output a few more with the same settings at the same time with good consistency. I used to do the same with the darkroom prints but the consistency was poor.

It's the same effort, just different processes. If you think that digital printing is pushing a button and watching a perfect print pop out with no effort, you simply have no understanding of what it takes to do fine art digital printing.

G

 

[FrankS]

Godfrey, I am completely puzzled that you could disagree with my statement that you bolded.

I CAN take a digital photo, send it to my printer, and have an inkjet print in under 5 minutes, while sitting on my couch.

If I take a film picture, I develop the roll and make a wet print in 2 hours.

 

[Corran]

I'm sure this is going to be just a great exchange of ideas momentarily but come on, you can objectively shoot one digital photo and print it out immediately in 2-3 minutes, while shooting an entire roll of 35mm film, even a short 12-exposure roll, developing it, drying it, getting the print made in the enlarger and drying that, is at least an hour at best.

There is no question that one can, from start to finish, make a digital print in no time at all, compared to a wet print.

Whether or not the print is crappy or not is completely missing the point I believe FrankS was making. Which I agree with 100%.

 

[FrankS]

Yes. My original post said artistic/aesthetic merit aside.

 

[shadowfox]

Film. Well to me that is another illusion in trying to make something that essentially has becoming meaningless into something meaningful by bringing the discipline, the process and basically the extra work for the same stuff. Film is for those who care for photos, my affliction, I don't care for photos.

If I may, film is not the same as digital.
So it is not extra work for the same stuff.

When you shoot film, there is no pause to check the LCD screen, and there could be a long time before you actually see the picture. These two seemingly insignificant factor can alter the way you do your photography. And yes, in your case, may actually make you care more about your photos.

And the coolest part of film photography (speaking for myself) is printing in the darkroom. There is nothing in the digital process that can equal it in terms of satisfaction.

So I second Frank's invitation to try shooting film. But do it when you have managed put aside the notion that film is just like digital but more work.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Still photography isn't dying. Photogs are quitting and new ones are coming.

Don't like editing, don't edit. Instagram it from the phone instantly.

Don't mention how you aren't ingesting about criticism. 😉 Because if you mentioning it, it means you care.

Nothing wrong with photography as the process before image taken or no image taken at all. John Free has explained it, you can't get something right without training. No exclusion for photography.
Exersizing with focus, framing and exposure without taking of any picture is normal.

Maybe something new is growing inside of you, or it might be just normal for this time of the year depression due to limited day, cold weather and such.

Take it easy. Happy long weekend Family Day.
Ko.

 

[Keith]

It's a bit like going for a walk to a particular destination, creek, lookout etc.

Often by the time you get there you discover that the walk was more enjoyable than the aesthetics of the actual destination itself.

 

[thegman]

I'll go out on a biased limb and say that this is a digital photography malaise. Disregarding artistic/aesthetic merit totally, digital photography can take very little effort to achieve an inkjet print. Photography done with a manual film camera, develop film, wet darkroom print takes more effort and is potentially more rewarding.

Both digital and film photography can only be as good as the photographer's eye of course. I'm only comparing the process and how the process requiring greater effort can be more satisfying.

Of what use is an effortless hobby?

I think this is true for many.

My other hobby is computers, and certainly, there is something about the modern consumer-facing computers (iPad, Android, even Mac or Windows) which can produce a malaise in me. On the other hand, other computer systems, every bit as modern or more so, but perhaps more technical in nature, present a challenge which appeals.

I think many of us, on some level, desire things to be more difficult and challenging than is strictly necessary.

I prefer Snooker to Pool, but I'm far better at Pool, and next to useless at Snooker, some of us need hobbies we need to work at, some of us do not.

 

[lynnb]

Hsg, there appears little difference between what you feel and do, and a conceptual artist.

 

[KM-25]

Reading this has made me even more grateful for the life I live through photography.

A suggestion if I may...

Log off the web for awhile, take a small and simple camera or even just an iPhone and forget about making photos for awhile and just be. Have the camera with you but live for life, not for the act of photographing. What might happen is that you only decide to make a photograph when you are more deeply moved by something.

Or....don't take my advice and just keep doing what you feel makes you happy.

 

[Sparrow]

... I don't recall ever seeing one of the OP's photos, so I've no idea if he's taking rubbish or not.

 

[alistair.o]

I get it. You are not interested.

Rick: easy there tiger. We seniors need to watch the blood pressure gauge. 😛

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, I am completely puzzled that you could disagree with my statement that you bolded.

I CAN take a digital photo, send it to my printer, and have an inkjet print in under 5 minutes, while sitting on my couch.

If I take a film picture, I develop the roll and make a wet print in 2 hours.

And I can press the button on my Spectra and have a film print in four minutes. Don't even have to turn on the printer. Same thing.

G