My photography thoughts

[cz23]

False to me. I'm using one roll, maximum two if I go for the street for several hours. Often, I'm not finishing roll at all. I'm only taking it if I'm going to print it. And I print about five from them.
I do same with digital M as well. Went on the street 31.12. took less than twenty shots.

Reread my statement in the context of the OP's post. He said he has averaged two acceptable shots per year for the past ten years. Surely you would agree he needs to loosen up and shoot more freely.

John

 

[:: Mark]

if you are at it to communicate, loudly, timely and across many platforms then digital is an attractive approach.

I am not sure about loudly, but "timely" can be a major reason to shoot digital on at least some occasions.

It is also too easy to worry about film vs digital (which film, which processing?) and which camera and which lens. Perhaps it is better to think about the subject matter and how you want to curate and present it - and the medium and tools should follow from that.

That said I think I shoot mainly film partly because of the result, but also because the effort and cost gives a greater investment in each image. This is a kind of cognitive bias which sadly makes me prefer my hard-won film shots over far better but much less invested digital images. The tactile pleasure of a nice film camera only adds to this delusion.

Ultimately, as others have said, I think understanding why you are shooting is comes before everything...

 

[sjw617]

You seem to have a bias toward a romantic image of film - you would like digital images if they were shot on film. Maybe you like the distortion of the grain.
I also see you say 20 good images in 10 years. That is a very low ratio.
I think you have to follow what makes you happy - both shooting and results. If shooting film makes you happy then do that. If getting results makes you happy than you have to figure out how to get more keepers. To me the way to increase keepers is to shoot more. Less than a roll a month is a very small amount of shooting.

 

[emraphoto]

The photos that will survive a generation, digital or analogue, are those of the ones you love...either on a screen or in a sock drawer...

quite well said

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Reread my statement in the context of the OP's post. He said he has averaged two acceptable shots per year for the past ten years. Surely you would agree he needs to loosen up and shoot more freely.

John

I must have missed something between lines. OP didn't specified how much rolls, negatives were taken to achieve this goal, which seems to be fine in numbers of final prints, fine and final. The only complain I read from OP is what film is expensive. Does it mean OP actually takes a lot of exposures to get two fine and final prints per year? I can't imagine what someone on this forum and in USA would call bw film as expensive. Fixed, low income to afford 100 $ for 60 meters of bw film? And another 100$ for chemicals every over year?
Or is it about color film? I quit color on film long time ago, too expensive.

 

[begona]

This small discussion gave me some answers so thank you guys. 🙂

I do not shoot a lot...number of keepers is really subjective...someone would choose much more keepers from my negatives than I did...but as I said, I am very selective trying to keep ones I think are the best.

Everyone has his own way so it was nice to read how you guys thinking...although thinking and knowing is one thing...

Cheers

 

[telenous]

This small discussion gave me some answers so thank you guys. 🙂

I do not shoot a lot...number of keepers is really subjective...someone would choose much more keepers from my negatives than I did...but as I said, I am very selective trying to keep ones I think are the best.

Everyone has his own way so it was nice to read how you guys thinking...although thinking and knowing is one thing...

Cheers

Sorry, second post. Nice work in your website, Goran. Nothing wrong with curating tightly the photos you show. Actually it's the converse that is usually a problem (I mean for me as a viewer). Choosing film photographs is another way of curating your output, this time with regard to their presentation. I agree with the posters above: You could do it differently and successfully so. But then it would be different and that's (apparently) not what you want in the first place.

I'd still say to loosen up when shooting film. If you only shoot what you anticipate will work, you shoot a specific kind of photo, also (btw) made by others who also anticipate that that sort of situation will work. Loosen up and throw yourself in the stream of life around, it's the only way to actually get photos with a more improvisatory/spontaneous feel, the kind that is unanticipated and, at the bottom of it, unexpected even for the one who made it. There's curious exhilaration when one of these rough gemstones land on your lap. Maybe that's not your cup of tea, and that's fine, so take these words as just another photographer's point of view 🙂

.

.

 

[cz23]

BTW, Goran, I like the photographs you have posted to your web site. The charm of film is obvious in them. And all of us who have wrestled with this issue understand your film/digital dilemma.

John

 

[airfrogusmc]

I lost my darkroom and access to another and I don't have the space now so I went digital in 06. I love film and if I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting it in some capacity.

I really like digital to. I shoot with a Leica MM and I love the flexibility and the look of the files. The ability to take one frame at 320 ISO and the next at 6400 ISO I just love. The look of medium format at high ISO and also the flexibility like shooting with a 500 C/M and different film backs with different ISO in a much smaller package.

I think one needs to shoot a lot. Bresson said something like you have to milk a lot of cows just to get a little cheese and when Winogrand was pushed about how much he shot he said that art was not a product of industrial efficiency.

 

[cz23]

....I think one needs to shoot a lot. Bresson said something like you have to milk a lot of cows just to get a little cheese and when Winogrand was pushed about how much he shot he said that art was not a product of industrial efficiency.

And then there's Frank, who shot 27,000 negatives for the 83 photographs in "The Americans." Today that would be about $4K for film alone. And imagine the time investment.

Digital is wonderful in that regard.

John

 

[MIkhail]

It seems that with digital it is much more easy to make good photo than with film.

Goran

It only seems that way.

 

[raid]

I have been trying out a strategy by which I use film and digital equipment. I mainly use the M9 and M8 for digital, with Olympus E-P2 and E-PL1 as back-up, with the Hasselblad SWC being my main film camera for the time being. I set aside the M3 and M6 (and many other film cameras) until I decide what to do next.

Happy New Year!

 

[grouchos_tash]

Yep guys...I am completely aware that technology seems like more important than result..and I know it is wrong. I know that shooting with a film will not make any photograph better than shooting with digital as only a final print is important, but somehow I just do not appreciate digital photos I make. It is not about photo itself but about a process, effort.

Also, I know there is no an answer somewhere around but in myself...But it is nice to share with people to see if they face the same "problem"

I totally know how you feel, I'm in exactly the same situation. Sometimes I feel like I shouldn't have bought a digital camera, but I would have missed so many pictures of my niece.

When I was looking for a picture to post in the 'Favourite of 2107' thread I realised how little photos I've taken over the year. I guess that can be this year's goal!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I lost my darkroom and access to another and I don't have the space now so I went digital in 06. I love film and if I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting it in some capacity.

I really like digital to. I shoot with a Leica MM and I love the flexibility and the look of the files. The ability to take one frame at 320 ISO and the next at 6400 ISO I just love. The look of medium format at high ISO and also the flexibility like shooting with a 500 C/M and different film backs with different ISO in a much smaller package.

I think one needs to shoot a lot. Bresson said something like you have to milk a lot of cows just to get a little cheese and when Winogrand was pushed about how much he shot he said that art was not a product of industrial efficiency.

With 28mm and in the crowd continuous shooting makes sense. It also makes sense if your income depends on amount of exposures you need to be accepted as the more less single source of the income.

If we skip this factor of income money as the serious reason for taking pictures and look at approach of John Free, the "shoot a lot" becomes as negative factor to get more keepers. I took this approach and have more frames to print.
It is same as going through the forest next to large city and getting mushrooms for cooking. You walk a lot, you look around a lot, but only few mushrooms are taken. Photography becomes similar to it these days. In HCB glory time, almost every handheld photo was discovery and next to the art. Now photography is something where just going to remote place or taking it with sitter in the corner and huge empty space above doesn't count as novice.

I think with digital-film mix it is convenient to have same gear. Those with CanoNikons are blessed. My EOS Rebel takes same lenses and flashes as digital EOS Rebel camera. The cost of cameras if purchased used is next to nothing, while my digital Rebel does have ISO 6400 with not only bw capabilities, but usable colors.

The problem comes with M word. Leica did great job for how old and not only Leica, expensive lenses works on digital M, but it is much more expensive for bodies.

The part where digital and film can't be always seamlessly merged comes with printing. Prints from scans are done in same matter as prints from digital M, but lith printing is something I don't know how to get digitally.

 

[______]

The part where digital and film can't be always seamlessly merged comes with printing. Prints from scans are done in same matter as prints from digital M, but lith printing is something I don't know how to get digitally.

One of the obvious questions you need to ask yourself is whether you prefer working in the darkroom with chemical processes or working in front of a computer with an inkjet printer.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

One of the obvious questions you need to ask yourself is whether you prefer working in the darkroom with chemical processes or working in front of a computer with an inkjet printer.

In the past computer and regular inkjet was nothing, but bad experience to me for bw, and so-so for color. This is why I was happy to learn wet printing. Now, after getting of M-E, I'm trying my luck with inks again. The order for printer, paper and ink was placed this morning...

 

[airfrogusmc]

I'm not sure what keeper is. I mean I lay things out and see how they fit into a project I am working on. Maybe it's the start of a new body of work or maybe it will fit into a new body of work in the future.

I think we need to shoot how ever many we need to shoot to get to where we need to get to. No one talks about how many sketches and how many times a painter has sketched a scene before painting it or painted over parts of his painting to get to where he needs to be.

As far as B&W man the MM is the only digital B&W I have warmed up to and the prints I get from that and my 2880 are as good as B&W digital gets.

If you are processing and printing yourself then the price of film is not all that bad. There are ways tp cut down on the cost.

 

[FrankS]

The important thing about professional photography is satisfying paying clients.

The important thing about amateur photography is satisfying yourself. Use and do what makes you happy.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Agree Frank.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not sure what keeper is.

I'm taking pictures to see them on prints. And I'm taking pictures to document.
If I'm looking at same print from time to time and I don't want to shred it - it is the keeper. But I might reprint it.
If I see picture on the screen and it represents the moment well - it is also keeper. But I might to revisit same event or retake this portrait.
My few and only projects are inline with this concept.