No More Color

1750Shooter said:
Has anyone else given up on color film & gone to digital for color & only shoot B&W film? I've had so much trouble with bad scans & high costs, so... I gave up.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, this is what I've just switched to. I used to shoot Fujichrome, and often convert images to b/w later. But since the demise of my favourite E6 emulsions, I've not found a C41 colour I'm happy with, and I'm fed up of disappointing negs, needing correction and not having the vibrancy. As I say, most of what I shoot ends up in mono anyway, so no loss to switch.

Ultimately, I'd like to get to doing my own processing again, and use bulk film. But till then, I'm shooting exclusively XP2, cause it does what I want. :)

I always carry at least one film and one digital camera with me.
 
Michael Markey said:
`fraid I`ve long given up on colour film.
Gave my last ten rolls to a friend.
I was never a fan of colour negative film.
I shot kodachrome for over thirty years and nothing else seem quite the same after that .
I now much prefer the colour options from my Sigmas,when I do shoot colour.
Click to expand...

... this is one of them I think, the fast ones anyway

8500428466_8a48f12b35_b.jpg
 
Congratulations to the OP for finding what works personally.

Reducing costs while maximizing pleasure is always a good thing.

Film is great. So is digital. Color is cool, black and white is beautiful.

Why people need to have a "policy" about everything is wayyy beyond me.
 
I never ever stopped shooting B/W.
First as color improved, in the 80's,everybody went color.
Weddings, Family gatherings. Religious happenings all were color.
I shot my B/W.
I did color and where possible using Kodachrome for self and magazine assignments.
Kodachrome was sometimes "iffy" in accuracy.:bang:
I miss it daily.
Digital depended FOR me, on the digital camera i used with Point-Shoot Compact.
I adore color and have greatly improved with digital.
My Kodak Easyshare (Kodachrome)and Minolta D-600(ugly color,Monochrom B/W).

Finally I love shooting B/W in my old cameras..
The simplicity of process, the limit on exposures.
The joy of actually holding one's handiwork and exposures..:angel:
 
Allow me to preface this by saying I don't even rise to the level of amateur photographer, but a lifetime of doing graphics makes me realize that color is an eternal [infernal?] mystery and a bane for many an artist and photographer. The chemistry alone is baffling, the nuances hard to grasp, and the subjective responses unfathomable. Even after years of dabbling in it one mostly knows when it is right, not why.
 
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
As for digital not looking like film..well, yes. Its a different medium. Silver-gelatin prints (for BW) and Chromogenic Prints (color) are not the only valid means of making photographs. Both are relative latecomers in photography's history, superseding older processes, and they in turn are being superseded by newer processes. Not something to get bigoted about.

Those who think digital is inferior to color film are invariably people who have either never tried digital or who did not make the effort to learn to use it, and the software (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) that are digital's "darkroom." When I first began using digital, it was a HUGE learning curve. Took me a long time to get good enough that I felt able to switch from film for my color work. Was worth the effort, though.
Click to expand...

Simply put...this is BS!!

I work in digital professionally, doing commercial work - events, portraits, weddings, etc. I absolutely know how to work in software and I taught classes in Photoshop and Lightroom for several years!

You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said anything was "inferior." I also did not say film was the only "valid" means of making a photograph. I simply said that one can not reasonably duplicate the look of color film in digital perfectly, and getting close takes work, more work than I want to put in when I can, you know, just shoot film.

Please read a little more carefully and respond to what I said, not what you think I said. I do not appreciate being called "bigoted" when you have simply put words in my mouth!
 
noimmunity said:
Congratulations to the OP for finding what works personally.

Reducing costs while maximizing pleasure is always a good thing.

Film is great. So is digital. Color is cool, black and white is beautiful.

Why people need to have a "policy" about everything is wayyy beyond me.
Click to expand...

This pretty much covers my thoughts.
 
Corran said:
Simply put...this is BS!!

I work in digital professionally, doing commercial work - events, portraits, weddings, etc. I absolutely know how to work in software and I taught classes in Photoshop and Lightroom for several years!

You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said anything was "inferior." I also did not say film was the only "valid" means of making a photograph. I simply said that one can not reasonably duplicate the look of color film in digital perfectly, and getting close takes work, more work than I want to put in when I can, you know, just shoot film.

Please read a little more carefully and respond to what I said, not what you think I said. I do not appreciate being called "bigoted" when you have simply put words in my mouth!
Click to expand...


I'll quote you because I thought the same thing, the poster elides the meaning of 'valid' to mean good as or the same as, and then makes the common claim of those who've compromised, that digital looks just as good as film, if you dick around with the sliders in the proper manner.

It doesn't and it won't. Some guy was on here telling me to lower contrast by brushing blend mode layers, and that would be as good as film's superior DR.

http://120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm

There are so, so many people who determine that the truth is what they wanted to be true anyway. It's a cop out, and deep inside they know it, so they get all sensitive about it.

Also, it's banal. Lmao.
 
B/W film is so gorgeous! I shoot mostly digital but i recognize film can be beaten by digital.

For colour i prefer digital.
 
photomoof said:
I understood, and meant since we see in color, B&W film is at best abstract, and at worst an affectation.
Click to expand...

And to add to that, an author of images should consciously use materials that help inform the work that they are attempting to produce. Both B+W and color have specific connotations as to how an image might be read, translated, and consumed by a viewer. (Just one example: B+W is socially viewed as 'serious' or 'arty' etc.; note the shift to B+W for certain commercial ad campaigns in the past decade, e.g., Calvin Klein, Versace, etc..)

Not using a particular material because it's 'too difficult' to master doesn't make much sense, imho. It's important to the outcome of what one is trying to say with their images, and so why not use the material that best helps facilitate an image's interpretation instead of compromising for the sake of ease and simplicity(?) Like the author of written words who carefully chooses syntax and is fully aware of the shades of meaning, an author of images should be fully aware of visual language and all the cultural codes that they represent with their images.
 
Ranchu said:
Elitism. Pay to play. Just call us banal, buddy, it saves time.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you're after me (again.) :)

I'm not quite sure what is "elitist" about something that's pretty much a common understanding in the context of producing imagery (and also with written material or music, etc..) :confused:

There are cultural codes embedded in all production. The producer should at least be aware of that. B+W unfortunately had the connotation of being 'serious' and why there was a resistance against color as a valid form of photographic expression. And commercial ad campaigns (which tend to follow art) later picked up on the idea of gritty/grainy B+W as 'art' and cashed in on the revival of an interest in early B+W photography.

And that connotation (that color is banal and best for 'snapshots') unfortunately is still with us. Color is 'banal' and B+W isn't; B+W is 'serious and arty.' That's a completely arcane idea but it does still persist. And it was what early users of color understood, too. (Eggleston+Szarkowski, e.g.) Thanks to smarter heads prevailing, we've pretty much transcended that notion (at least in the contemporary art world), although it's still in the mind of many novice viewers.

I'm not condoning any of this B+W versus color issue, other than recognizing it as something that exists. An author should be cognizant of the materials they use and what cultural/social connotations might be associated with them (despite if those connotations are either right or wrong.) Use color if color informs the work and use B+W if it informs the work. But be aware of the connotations of any material and what it's doing to the work. And that was really all that I said. It's nothing new, but only a reminder that image makers should pay attention to this.... unless one makes images solely for themselves and to be viewed privately without an audience.....
 
The beauty of photography is that it doesn't require an explanation. I don't owe anyone anything, an adherence to the framework of some convoluted, vaguely fashionable jargon least of all. No one does, it's just a gatekeeping device and a seeking of control.
 
Ranchu said:
The beauty of photography is that it doesn't require an explanation. I don't owe anyone anything, an adherence to the framework of some convoluted, vaguely fashionable jargon least of all.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you feel it's nothing but "vaguely fashionable jargon." For me, it's imperative that the viewer is clear about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it (social/economic/political documentary.... and in color.) Creating a narrative with only still images (unlike text and motion film with audio) is very challenging and difficult. I need to be fully aware of all the social and cultural codes in the images and the connotations that come with those codes. I personally feel that any image maker should be cognizant of this. And not just those in my line of production. I know many poets who are excellent linguists and take great effort to find the correct syntax.

Cheers.
 
Ranchu said:
Pretty cunning linguists then.

Cheers indeed.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to belabor this as it's pretty basic stuff, but I would like to ask as to how you find a photograph to end up being satisfying for you as a viewer. A photograph can't speak verbally. And if it has no text or caption, it needs to use objects within the frame that represent something meaningful to you, or to get your attention, etc.. How do you decide on which photograph has meaning to you? Isn't it based on your own environment, and your personal and collective social and cultural background? And what you've also learned about conventions of composition and geometry and color association, tonality, etc.. You say, "The beauty of photography is that it doesn't require an explanation" but maybe that's because you've developed a way of reacting to images based on all that social and cultural feedback, and all those learned conventions. You've developed an 'explanation' already.

It also could be the reason why art and music and the written word can sometimes be difficult to interpret if they are outside those codes we've already established. e.g., I haven't learned to understand Cubism and therefore have difficulty with interpreting it. Yet a friend of mine has studied it and learned to understand it. The images have meaning to her based on her social and cultural background. There's a distinct connotation of what she sees. I assume it could also "speak to me without explanation" but only if I had something to anchor onto.

And let's say the object in the photograph is your ex-lover. You would react to it based on the person you see in the image. But if I look at that same image, it's only some stranger in another photograph. But what if within the frame there are other things going on that I can connect with based on my personal and collective social/cultural understanding (which means everything I know about the world and can understand.) Now it doesn't matter that the person in the image is a stranger. The image takes on meaning to me for other reasons. We both identified with the image based on what we saw from our own personal and collective world.

In respect to poetry, language is a set of symbols that we learn to construct for communication. What if you tried to understand a poem written in a language that you didn't know at all? (an unrecognizable pattern of symbols.) The poem can't really 'speak' to you. It needs 'explanation.' You need to use your learned social and cultural skills to be able to interpret a poem. And if you have a limited vocabulary, a poem in a language that you learned might also be hard to interpret. Poets are well aware of syntax and the nuances of the meaning of words. This would be like me not understanding Cubism and not being able to interpret it. It needs explaining.

As readers of images, our understanding and interpretation of those images comes from our learned social and cultural background (both personal and shared.) Even if they are abstract images or lacking in color or full of color, we respond to them based on what we already know (I like a certain color and I will react if I see that color in an image, etc..there is no need for 'explanation;' it's already been interpreted in my mind.) We are always trying to 'make sense' of what we see, whether abstract or realistic.

btw, an interesting body of work from the 1990s that sort of addresses this thing of reading images based on our internal explanations of them, is Uta Barth's out of focus images of ordinary scenes. The viewer is challenged to "strain their perception of things that are barely visible.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uta_Barth

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/barth-field-20-t07627/text-summary

Anyway, hopefully you might not dismiss all of what's been said here....

....and I see that your last comment was removed. I'll end here (I promise) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom