Dan
Let's Sway
Normally around this time of year I get a mild case of GAS, no doubt due to the rampant consumerism of the holiday season and the fact I can write off my purchases for the year. Looks like I beat the lure of an upgrade in a camera body for now, but it made me think of a sentiment we've all probably been exposed to in the past, especially those of us coming from a film background.
It used to be many of us would chase some silver bullet in the form of a 'new, better' film or paper developer that supposedly offered an amazing combination of just what we thought our then current process lacked. I know I did. And that was a valid way to expand our technique, utilize new knowledge, experiment, and perhaps actually find something unfamiliar that indeed provided further refinement of tonality, scale, grain, whatever.
But the common wisdom always reminded us to stick with one film+developer combination and one (or two) papers+developer combo to really learn their limits and possibilities. That was one way to increase your level of craftsmanship, as working with familiar materials let you move beyond the mechanical aspect of the medium into a more controlled and purposeful manipulation of those materials toward a personal expression. You were chasing the idea of having complete control over the materials.
So I began to think about whether a new, better camera body (D800) would be the best method of increasing the quality of my imagery and it occurred to me that I'd be better off learning how to increase my proficiency inside LR instead. Kind of like sticking with Polycontrast and Dektol: no need for boutique chemicals, just get really, really good with what you have.
Most all of us feel the constant pressure to upgrade because technology gives us better materials in rapid succession, but I'm thinking: enough with the new hardware! It's about growing as a digital processor of my files because that's where I can make (and see) the biggest gains.
Just a thought; what do you think?
It used to be many of us would chase some silver bullet in the form of a 'new, better' film or paper developer that supposedly offered an amazing combination of just what we thought our then current process lacked. I know I did. And that was a valid way to expand our technique, utilize new knowledge, experiment, and perhaps actually find something unfamiliar that indeed provided further refinement of tonality, scale, grain, whatever.
But the common wisdom always reminded us to stick with one film+developer combination and one (or two) papers+developer combo to really learn their limits and possibilities. That was one way to increase your level of craftsmanship, as working with familiar materials let you move beyond the mechanical aspect of the medium into a more controlled and purposeful manipulation of those materials toward a personal expression. You were chasing the idea of having complete control over the materials.
So I began to think about whether a new, better camera body (D800) would be the best method of increasing the quality of my imagery and it occurred to me that I'd be better off learning how to increase my proficiency inside LR instead. Kind of like sticking with Polycontrast and Dektol: no need for boutique chemicals, just get really, really good with what you have.
Most all of us feel the constant pressure to upgrade because technology gives us better materials in rapid succession, but I'm thinking: enough with the new hardware! It's about growing as a digital processor of my files because that's where I can make (and see) the biggest gains.
Just a thought; what do you think?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And it was wrong. If you don't try other films, papers, etc., sometimes you can miss out on brilliant new products.
That's not the same as hopping from one film, paper, etc., to another, because you need your "baseline" (favourite film/dev combination) for comparison -- though you'd be a fool not to try as many films as possible when you start out, or you'll never see which you like better.
For a digital equivalent? Well, I'm reasonably skilled with Photoshop and Lightroom, and my M9 does what I want, so I'm now more interested in improving my vision rather than my cameras or (Heaven forfend) bloody software.
Cheers,
R.
Dan
Let's Sway
I'm sure we all agree that we're on a constant mission to improve our vision. It's the part about being 'reasonably skilled with [the software]' that I'm trying to equate with the 'ol one film/dev. combo. I'm not at all a software geek, nor am I interested in software for software's sake; but LR and PS are my chemicals, agitation routine, darkroom and pathway toward the end result.
Do you think some creative folks in the past look at the chemistry side of photography, with all its attention to time and temperature, as the equivalent to file menus, adjustment layers and backup routines?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite probably. The big difference was constantly changing films and developers, instead of programs. On that level, digital with LR and PS has to be an improvement.
Cheers,
R.