For me photos have no value

[Dante_Stella]

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.

Try to let the film dry longer than that. 🙂

Dante

 

[Godfrey]

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.

There's no pause with digital photography either, if you choose not to look at the screen after every shot. There's no requirement that you do so. First thing I do on every digital camera is turn off auto-review. Sometimes I don't get a moment to look at what's on the card for a long time; I usually don't look until I upload the card to Lightroom for processing.

We will continue to disagree.

G

 

[bobbyrab]

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

What's a spectra printer Godfrey, does it scan and digitally print from film in four minutes or is it an optical system with a wet print. Sounds like a digital system to me and that four minutes without film development yes?

 

[FrankS]

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

Don't have one of those machines. I make prints using open trays of chemicals in my darkroom.

Red herring

 

[noisycheese]

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.

It seems to me that the viewpoint expressed in the original post smacks of the brand virulent pretentiousness that flourishes in both photographic academia and the fine art gallery world. This is why I avoid both these environments like the plague.

 

[airfrogusmc]

NC, I don't know anyone in that world, that works seriously, that thinks like that. I have several good friends that still teach and one that is retired and none of them would subscribe to this. I find this more prevalent in the herds of the ignorant that are now flooding into the arts and have no value on what they create and what others create because the ease at which it is done and have no interest in understanding that argument was settled in the world you talk about almost a century ago and they all take such pride in their ignorance.

 

[FrankS]

Godfrey, maybe we are at odds because we approach photography differently. For me, it's not all about the final image. For me, photography as a hobby is a pleasant use of time going through a traditional process which then ends with a satisfying image. If I were only concerned with the final image, then I would be happy to use digital or a spectra machine where I can push a button and out pops a final print. But because it's a hobby and I enjoy the process as well as the resulting prints, I don't want computers, printers, or machines to do it all for me. I find no satisfaction in that relatively effortless process.

You will either understand this or you will continue to defend digital, which you do not have to do because I am not demeaning or disparaging digital, just trying to explain how the film and wet darkroom process serves my purpose better in terms of being a satisfying hobby for me.

This thread started with someone becoming disinterested in photography the way he was doing it (digitally), and I was attempting to help by suggesting a different path which works for me and gives me tonnes of enjoyment and satisfaction. I'm not sure how you can logically disagree with what works for me and what works for some others as well.

RFF should be friendly to all forms of photography and as a moderator you have a greater responsibility than simply pushing your own personal choices. IMO a moderator should support alternative paths of the love of photography, not persistantly argue against them.

 

[35photo]

I think my head is going to explode if some else says "Oh just shoot film" It has nothing to do with film or digital for that matter, nothing, nada, zero, zilch... Its all in the mind and eyes people if you can't get to right there then its over...

I could go on about looking at LCD screens, printing in the darkroom etc.. If your shooting digital you DON'T have to look at the danm LCD screen at all jeez, just shoot man, I mean seriously bracket if your not sure of exposure.. and move on. I shoot my digital camera just like my film camera its not different at all. Oh that the whole thing with shooting film "slows you down", makes you think more about the image come on! That's total nonsense. If you want to slow down the shooting process shoot 4X5 or 8X10...

Yeah, printing in the darkroom was fun in my younger and college days and when I was shooting mostly all B&W and I printed in the color darkroom as well.. Sitting in the dark printing is not fun for me at all, for some it is and that's cool nothing wrong with it. I rather be out making images. Nothing wrong with using Lightroom and making inkjet or any other type of print from my digital files or film scans.. Its all in the mind folks is what it comes down to everything else is preference..

OK, rant over for now..

 

[FrankS]

I think my head is going to explode if some else says "Oh just shoot film" .

It was an attempt to help someone who posted about feeling his prints were valueless, by suggesting an alternative process.

Reading subsequent posts, the best advice is probably: find another hobby.

 

[back alley]

i think some folks have a caricature of what a digital shooter looks/acts like and nothing will ever change that!
i have a 'mind picture' of people who shoot street with a long telephoto and nothing seems able to change that!
most of us have a mental judgement stuck in our brains about something...

 

[seakayaker1]

I do love taking photographs . . . . .

I do love creating a print . . . . . (note: I do not have a clue as to the number of images taken over any period of time that turns into a selected image that hangs on my wall or someone else's.)

I do love having the infrequent opportunity to hang some of my images in a public space.

I do love the few times in my life where someone asked to purchase a print, then after quoting a price they bought it.

I do love the miles and miles of walking with a camera in one hand.


If photography was my profession, I may not have the love for it that I do.

I do know, at least for me, when something is not working, sometimes you have to put it down and walk away for awhile.


Over the years I have taken a number of writing workshops and they have certainly honed my abilities to deal with criticism, take something constructive if it is there and ignore the rest.


Good luck HSG, and may you find nothing but fabulous light!

 

[f16sunshine]

My dad likes to joke about one youngest niece....

"She is a vegitarian that does not eat vegetables!"

Sounds like the op has discovered something similar in his realation to photography.

I have known a few gardeners that don't eat what they grow.
A few fisherman that can't stand the smell or taste of fish (one was so good he could catch salmon in a flooded parking lot).

It happens. Our world and societies are often Paradoxical. It's not that shocking really.

 

[Godfrey]

What's a spectra printer Godfrey, does it scan and digitally print from film in four minutes or is it an optical system with a wet print. Sounds like a digital system to me and that four minutes without film development yes?

All film and chemistry.

G

 

[35photo]

It was an attempt to help someone who posted about feeling his prints were valueless, by suggesting an alternative process.

Reading subsequent posts, the best advice is probably: find another hobby.

Frank, my comments were not targeted at you.. just for the record. I agree the best is find another hobby, but clearly the op is on the fence looking for someone to somehow save him..of give him something to grab on to hold on to photography... The op started another thread awhile back about having a "photographic block" which many including myself offered advice and tips..seems not to have worked. So we are here.

 

[f16sunshine]

All film and chemistry. G

Come on G... You're just finding a loophole for the sake of an argument.

Comparing an instant print workflow to a traditional wet print or even digital workflow is like comparing a Chocolate pudding pack to hand made creme brûlée ... Don't you think?
(Though both can be delicious as can instant prints.).

 

[Sparrow]

Come on G... You're just finding a loophole for the sake of an argument.

Comparing an instant print workflow to a traditional wet print or even digital workflow is like comparing a Chocolate pudding pack to hand made creme brûlée ... Don't you think?
(Though both can be delicious as can instant prints.).

... creme brûlée? ... easy, but crème caramel? well then you'er asking for trouble 🙂

Going back to a point I made earlier, has anyone seen the OP's photos yet? as they really could be of no value after all

 

[Godfrey]

Come on G... You're just finding a loophole for the sake of an argument.

Comparing an instant print workflow to a traditional wet print or even digital workflow is like comparing a Chocolate pudding pack to hand made creme brûlée ... Don't you think?
(Though both can be delicious as can instant prints.).

No on both counts.

We're having a discussion in the section of RFF that is called "Philosophy of Photography." Discussion of philosophy entails a certain amount of debate and disagreement.

G

 

[airfrogusmc]

I would compare my digital workflow similar to the darkroom work flow for my personal work. I work on the digital files, I make a print and study the print for a while and then make more adjustments. It would sometimes take me hours to make a final exhibition print in the darkroom and that's not much different from my digital experience. I can crank out more in less time once I have the digital file right.

I am a photographer and I still love it. Been at it several decades and I have been making my living doing it. My professional work is more often than not a collaboration with other creatives like art directors/designers/ account managers/marketing directors to ultimately satisfy a client so that work is really not mime but the clients.

My personal work is all mine and though I have had success with it i couldn't support my family and give them a decent standard of living with just my personal work. Without my personal work I would have been burned out a decade or two ago.

So my professional work is the base that makes everything else possible.

A couple of others that this was also true for.
"For me photography has been a profession, an avocation. Now it has become a way of life." - Wynn Bullock

"There’s always been a separation between fashion and what I call my “deeper” work. Fashion is where I make my living. I’m not knocking it. It’s a pleasure to make a living that way. It’s pleasure, and then there’s the deeper pleasure of doing my portraits. It’s not important what I consider myself to be, but I consider myself to be a portrait photographer." - Richard Avedon


Maybe my favorite and the one I really can relate to. The only difference is I, like Avedon, don't hate the work I do to feed the beast.
"When money enters in, - then, for a price, I become a liar, - and a good one I can be whether with pencil or subtle lighting or viewpoint. I hate it all, but so do I support not only my family, but my own work." - Edward Weston

I am a photographer. It is my my life. There is rarely a day that goes by that I am not doing something photographic and I love it more now than the day I started the journey. For me anyone that doesn't have a burning passion needs to find something that they do have a burning passion for. Life is to short and the journey is over in the blink of an eye.

 

[Sparrow]

Philosophy of Photography ... is that like a get out of gaol free card in monopoly?

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, maybe we are at odds because we approach photography differently. For me, it's not all about the final image. For me, photography as a hobby is a pleasant use of time going through a traditional process which then ends with a satisfying image. If I were only concerned with the final image, then I would be happy to use digital or a spectra machine where I can push a button and out pops a final print. But because it's a hobby and I enjoy the process as well as the resulting prints, I don't want computers, printers, or machines to do it all for me. I find no satisfaction in that relatively effortless process.

You will either understand this or you will continue to defend digital, which you do not have to do because I am not demeaning or disparaging digital, just trying to explain how the film and wet darkroom process serves my purpose better in terms of being a satisfying hobby for me.

This thread started with someone becoming disinterested in photography the way he was doing it (digitally), and I was attempting to help by suggesting a different path which works for me and gives me tonnes of enjoyment and satisfaction. I'm not sure how you can logically disagree with what works for me and what works for some others as well.

RFF should be friendly to all forms of photography and as a moderator you have a greater responsibility than simply pushing your own personal choices. IMO a moderator should support alternative paths of the love of photography, not persistantly argue against them.

Frank,

BTW: I'm not an RFF moderator. I stepped away from that a long time ago.

I don't think we approach photography all that differently, although for me it is more a vocation than a hobby. And I'm not "defending digital" because it doesn't need any defense from me. I'm saying that I disagree with your statements as they were posted. Whether they expressed what you intended them to or not is another matter. You've expanded on your intended meaning in the quote above, which is more palatable than what you said originally.

Wet lab process and digital capture process are two different processes, but in the end the question of what I enjoy is the same: I enjoy the creating of photographs, for whatever reason, including the workflow. I happen to enjoy creating photographs much more when the process is more consistent and predictable, and I work very hard at it. So your disparagement of digital as taking no effort is a direct assault on what I like most about my work in photography: that it takes effort and produces satisfying results, no matter whether I work with film capture and chemistry, film capture and scanner and computer, or digital capture and computer. Or digital capture and chemistry too, for the sake of completeness (make digital negatives from my digital captures and print them in a wet lab). I've worked with ALL of these processes and found they all have their value and satisfactions.

The point, for me, is to make photographs, enjoy the workflow (whichever is my choice du jour), and produce things (photos, books of photos, motion-based presentations, gallery hangings, etc) that I and some others might enjoy.

I don't need a history of the thread. This section of RFF is "Philosophy of Photography" and the discussion that we are engaged in has diverged from the OP's topic. Others are continuing to discuss that; I put my comment in to him already and have no further to contribute to his notion that his photos have no value. I don't feel a need to convince him otherwise.

To ask the inverse, since I don't defend digital: Why do you constantly attack digital as taking no effort and therefore having no value? Just because you like the film process and find it satisfying doesn't mean that digital is effortless and valueless.

G