In search of perfection

[x-ray]

I don't think anyone suggested one type of photography has soul. Soul comes from the person creating the image. I don't believe photos can have soul unless the person creating the image is 100% connected to the subject / event and the medium. I find that I must be mentally connected to what I'm shooting otherwise it's justxa picture to me. There's a bit of extra magic when you're fully emersed. Some folks do it with nature and digital and others like myself feel B&W film and certain subjects do it for me.

You might want to look at my link below and see what I shoot. My wife and friends think I'm nuts for shooting some of my subjects but I can't fully get into a subject unless I'm slightly uneasy about who or what I'm shooting. I get no thrill out of landscapes or still life's though I do shoot them once in a while. It's more satisfying the need to photograph rather than stimulating the soul. I almost forgot serpent handling in church. I've witnessed. Men getting bitten by rattle snakes and handling cobras, holding a propane torch flame on themselves and drinking drain cleaner and poison.
Go a few pages into my gallery and you'll find kkk cross burnings, neo nazis, moon shining and cock fighting.

 

[icebear]

Not a professional here, never had the thought of turning a fun hobby into something to earn any money from.
I'm in just for the enjoyment of it.

Nevertheless here my $o.o2:
If you feel film is like an old pair of boots for you, then go for it, no question.
On the other hand, I guess this is not the real problem.

For commercial work the only one to satisfy is the client. Simple as that. If they are happy and you get paid, that's it , job well done !
If the client is happy with the technical quality but you are not happy with the artistic expression, that's purely your personal ambition.
Important but you aren't gonna get paid for your own satisfaction.

If your drive for technical perfection in the digital age, when scrutinizing a shot at 100 or 200% just by a mouse click becomes standard, gets in the way of capturing the important moment (not to involve HCB), that gives the image the certain something, the tension that you have captured, a fleeting moment and not have been milking the scene and been playing with focus and exposure, perspective and maybe even different lenses for half an hour, to achieve a technical perfect shot that is life less because it's overworked, then you are indeed due for the artistic rehab that you mentioned already for yourself.

So you recognized the problem by yourself (or your wife pointed you to the obvious 😉) - clearly there is hope along the way.

 

[Bill Clark]

Still use film, mostly for fun. For me, digital capture and process is better.

Wouldn't want to go back to the sixties or seventies.

But I would like to find a nice vw micro bus from then!

 

[Vics]

On an amateur level, I just found it! Looking at my flickr photostream, I've just realised that my Nikon F pics froim the nineties are just as good as my more recent Leica/Contax pictures from the 21st century! I'm going back to my Nikons! Bring back the funk!

 

[x-ray]

On an amateur level, I just found it! Looking at my flickr photostream, I've just realised that my Nikon F pics froim the nineties are just as good as my more recent Leica/Contax pictures from the 21st century! I'm going back to my Nikons! Bring back the funk!

I look back at my old images and photos made with my minolta, nikon F and Leica M's were equally as good. It comes down to content not equipment as far as film gear goes.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...

Have you had such thoughts?

First of all, my respect for what you have done and double respect for what you about to do.


Sharpness and Art wasn't and is never the same.
You have to take few steps apart to be able to get the picture from classic impressionists. If you pixel poop at Degas you'll see nothing.

Digital photography is the trade's tool, film photography is much more closer to the art. It allows blur to be natural.

 

[mfogiel]

" Time to explore new photographic worlds. Shoot subjects that I've not done before or haven't done in 40 years."
Koudelka said somewhere, he does not like to be in the same place for more than 3 months, as his eye becomes too accustomed to the environment. Yet, people can be interesting anywhere.

 

[Sparrow]

Perfection is or was a way of life in the commercial world. Competition for big accounts with big budgets was fierce. When you have a $20,000 to $100,000 budget for a job clients demand perfection and won't accept excuses.

We lived in different commercial worlds then ... my customers would demand perfection until they learn the price then they usually settle for a commercial quality within their budget.

Now I'm free to do as I please I'm actually finding it difficult to do anything new

 

[lynnb]

Scanning and closely examining these images made me aware that my best images are often not my best images technically. The images weren't always tack sharp and didn't always have great tonality but the stood out from the other thousands as Bering something special.

Absolutely. Emotion, feelings, being part of the moment trump technical qualities every time.

I'm at a crossroad now. My entire career has demanded perfection to satisfy clients. I worked at achieving perfection so much I think a lot of my more recent work has become sterile and lacks emotion or at least the depth and emotion of my earlier work.

I'm a huge fan of the gritty documentary work you've posted here in the past on RFF - the KKK series immediately comes to mind. Wonderful, gutsy work.

I'm seeking the imperfect world I knew in the 60's and trying to regain my soul. I want to shed the shackles of pixel peeping and get back to real grain and grit.

Have you had such thoughts?

After mothballing my Nikon system and going Canon digital for quite a few years, I've gone back to shooting lots of film for exactly the same reasons. I've discovered I can make satisfying pictures with a Brownie Model #2, an Isolette I, a Bessa I, an XA and a bunch of other $5 charity store cameras. Rediscovering the possibilities and feel of film was the right decision for me.

The other thing I've discovered is the film-like rendition of the Nikon V1. For a digital, the files have real character, lacking the clinical sharpness and DR of other digital cameras. A bit like shooting Kodachrome.

I'll look forward to seeing your new work, if you would like to share it here.

kindest,

 

[Addy101]

While you feel that digital is simply too clean and lenses too perfect for your style, ultimately that is just you, not digital or film. You went down the road of technical perfection, probably because your clients expected it from you and digital made it doable. However, it is possible to get the depth and emotion of your earlier work with digital. Several people have done it. That being said, if you feel that to you film makes it easier to convey your soul, by all means, go and use film.

Just one thing: show us your pictures 😎

 

[x-ray]

We lived in different commercial worlds then ... my customers would demand perfection until they learn the price then they usually settle for a commercial quality within their budget.

Now I'm free to do as I please I'm actually finding it difficult to do anything new

I'm afraid my world has merged with your world. Budget is king and quality is secondary. This is one of the reasons I decided to go ahead and retire. I love commercial work and get joy out of creating excellent images no matter whether documentary or commercial. A well executed images is beautiful either way. Things as you know have dramatically changed. I rarely work with art directors now but on the flip side I have more freedom to be creative and control the direction of the shoot.

I've compared the boring technical shoots to practicing musical scales. You may not get the same joy as you do giving a concert but you sharpen your skills.

I had the great fortune to spend an afternoon with Imogen Cunningham in her home in SF. We sat in her living room going through prints and negatives. She made a comment about some images she did of Wallace Berry. They were beautifully executed and were shot under very harsh mid day sun. Her comment was to the effect that at the time she shot them didn't know enough to realize she didn't know what she was doing under those conditions but they came out great in spite of her lack of knowledge.

In the commercial world failure isn't allowed. The unacceptability of failure prevents especially me from tring things I might fail at. I have to get past this and accept failure if and when it happens.

My college education is in microbiology and organic chemistry. I'm afraid I have a fully functioning left and right brain that are fighting each other. They are in conflict.

 

[NY_Dan]

Xray -- yes I've had such thoughts. The low point of my career was photographing suppositories for a pharmaceutical company -- just still of the pills.

I think it's harder to make progress at the latter part of one's photographic career with regards to changing course. Reason, one has less time, and less physical energy, of course desire can combat these in large measure.

I do believe commercial work and fine art work can co-exist. Avedon and Penn did it.

 

[Bingley]

Digital can have soul but it's not the right medium for my work.

I'm glad everyone enjoys my work. I'm planning on posting more soon.

I'm delighted to hear this^^^^^. I don't know your commercial work, but I've really enjoyed the documenatry photos you've posted, some of which you shot years ago, on film. It's good to hear that you're going back to your roots to rekindle your inspiration.

 

[__--]

...I feel digital is simply too clean and lenses too perfect for my style. The soul has technically been removed from my work

...Getting some old "good enough" equipment from the 60's and 70's and getting back to telling stories with your images, I think sounds like a good idea...

Digital can have soul but it's not the right medium for my work...

...Digital photography is the trade's tool, film photography is much more closer to the art. It allows blur to be natural.

x-ray, I can appreciate that you feel that you prefer film to digital for what you want to do, although not sure why you want to shout it from the rooftops. Isn't it enough just to do it?

What I have trouble with is people who pontificate that film is "much closer to art" and that getting back to "equipment from the 60's and 70's and getting back to telling stories" is the thing to do. Sorry, equipment has nothing to do with art and soul (as some people have written above), and photographs, or art, don't need to "tell stories."

I guess I'm bored with photo forums.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 15-shot portfolio

 

[Sparrow]

... was it David Bailey who said "the art is in the errors" when talking about film's attributes? but then what would he know eh?

Personally I'm happy enough with photo forums ... but some of the contributors can be a bit tiresome I find

 

[jsrockit]

x-ray, I can appreciate that you feel that you prefer film to digital for what you want to do, although not sure why you want to shout it from the rooftops. Isn't it enough just to do it?

What I have trouble with is people who pontificate that film is "much closer to art" and that getting back to "equipment from the 60's and 70's and getting back to telling stories" is the thing to do. Sorry, equipment has nothing to do with art and soul (as some people have written above), and photographs, or art, don't need to "tell stories."

I guess I'm bored with photo forums.

Agreed on all fronts.

 

[willie_901]

i think people generally have a distaste for digital since that's the most common medium of photography these days.

are there any photographers working with digital whose photos have a "soulful" look to them?

Millions.



I apologize I must add these extra words to publish my posy.

 

[x-ray]

I guess I'm bored with photo forums.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD

Might be time for you to make a change too. I come and go from the forums because they do get a bit boring but I still enjoy the discussions particularly the philosophy of photography from time to time. I just can't get into it every day. There are more things in life than talking photography. I'd rather be out taking images.

I don't remember anyone saying film is closer to art. It's not, it's just another way of creating art. It's no more closer to art than scratching on a cave wall with a rock compared to oil paint or watercolors.

I don't know that I'm shouting it from the roof top. I'm just relating to folks here that have followed mw work that I'm retiring from the commercial photographic world and expanding my documentary work and x-ray art. I'm not actually retiring but just redirecting.

 

[hepcat]

Might be time for you to make a change too. I come and go from the forums because they do get a bit boring but I still enjoy the discussions particularly the philosophy of photography from time to time. I just can't get into it every day. There are more things in life than talking photography. I'd rather be out taking images.

I've been doing photography commercially off and on for over forty years now... I still love it, but it's only one pursuit among many for me.

Sailing and riding my recumbent tadpole trike come immediately to mind... I'm trying to train to ride RAGBRAI again this year... (the largest rolling party in the world) with 20,000 of my closest friends, but the weather hasn't cooperated well at all for training... I'll be working on it tho.

I'd like to chat more, but I'm off to hit the lake! The worst day sailing is better than the best day doing anything else!

 

[willie_901]

"Have you had such thoughts?"

I certainly have a much, much smaller library of early (1970-76) film work. I also have reflected how the higher technical quality of digital imagery compare to analog reproduction can affect my satisfaction level with the analog images. I choose to ignore these difference. To be complete, it is possible to record analog images that are technically similar or superior to digital methods. At the same time it is more difficult and certainly less convenient - if technical IQ is one's primary concern.

Technical IQ is essential to a point. I confident all but a small minority of people who read this thread realize content trumps technical quality. They also realize these are not mutually exclusive goals.

I think x-ray's thoughts bring up a messy subject. First let's assume content is identical. One can simulate a reduction in technical IQ excellence, but it is much more difficult (or even impossible) to create technical IQ that was not present in the first place. The messy subject is post-production, film-simulation software. It takes very little time to turn a digital image with a high-degree of technical IQ into an image that resembles one with analog media technical IQ. The amount of experience and sophistication to affect this transformation with clever subtlety and aesthetic awareness is not extraordinary. In fact after digitization one can do the exact same thing to analog media that have a very high level of ethnical IQ. Of course this can be done in a pure analog workflow as well.

I shot a socio-eceonimic documentary project during my transition form film to to digital media. About half of the content is analog. Some of those images were taken in difficult conditions and the technical IQ differences are not trivial. I debated whether to just use the analog or the digital images or manipulate the digital images match the 35mm analog work. After some thought I realized this Series could be naturally decided into two chronological sections and all the images will be rendered without regard to the original medium.

x-ray is now creating for himself. He is the client. The only thing that matters is that he satisfies himself. Abandoning digital imaging is exactly what he should do. How we work affects our results. We all have our own paths.