The wa of film

[gns]

Quote:[ I was thinking about film, and digital, and what it all means. I realized finally that for the Priest who holds aloft the Chalice, it very much DOES matter which words are said, how they are said, in what order and manner and with what emphasis - even what mindset they must have. The ritual is as important as the result - and indeed, integral to it. For the Priest, the result is a reliable product of the ritual, and cannot be obtained under false pretenses - and any shortcut, new technology, or serious change must needs be false.

For the Technician, the speed with which a measurable and repeatable result is obtained, the cost and difficulty involved obtaining it, are all that matter. The Technician is not concerned with the how - but with the what. They will gladly jump from technology to technology - abandoning one after the other in a quest for the ultimate in speed, low cost, and yes, even quality.]

Bill, Maybe I'm not sure what you are saying here, but don't rituals change as everything does? Should we all be coating our own mamoth wet plates in a tent?

I read once about some New Guinea tribesman who had been given a photo of himself wearing a headdress. He later lost the headdress so he just stuck the photo to his forhead from then on. In another story after being given a projector and a film that documented a tribal ritual, the tribe discontinued doing the ritual and instead, gathered every once in a while to watch the film.

These acts make sense because they recognize the symbolic nature of the "Original"and are just a replacement of one symbol with another.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[John Camp]

Frankly, the reason I asked the original question has something to do with economics as well as art. I abandoned film Nikons for digital Nikons because digital was way, way better for my purposes at the time. But now things have changed, and I decided I wanted to get more involved in photography and to try a rangefinder. Because I already do Photoshop, I got the only digital rangefinder available...and I'm waiting for the digital M. But I've gotten such a rush from the R-D1 that I've been thinking, why wait an unknown amount of time for the DM when I could get a used M now, and run the film through a hi-res Nikon film scanner? I mean, souping film takes no time at all, and you don't need a darkroom -- just a pot and a few chemicals. But then I've got a hybrid system; and I guess I was wondering if there are any qualities to film that only come through when you use a full wet system? Would I be losing whatever special qualities you get from film by going film/scanner/Photoshop? Or is this whole line of thought really a lot of time-wasting b.s. and I'm not such a great photographer that's it's going to make a nickel's worth of difference anyway? :bang:

JC

 

[Dracotype]

A cold beer, a good sunset, Mass said in Latin (with incense and choir), a cold night with a warm wife. When I smoked, a long pull on a cigarette just after a great meal.

I pursue photography because it frustrates me in the right ways. If it satisfied me, I'd hate it, because it would need no improvement.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Not a bad list...

I probably meant that, but it came out like it did. The frustration, blood (almost never 😀), sweat, and tears that I pour into my creations make it fulfilling(?) for me.

Yes, photography can merely be the relentless pursuit of perfection, but golly ain't it fun? 😀

Drew

 

[bmattock]

Yes, photography can merely be the relentless pursuit of perfection, but golly ain't it fun? 😀

It is certainly the relentless pursuit of something-or-other. And yes, fun. I'm wearing a big happy hat.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Bill, Maybe I'm not sure what you are saying here, but don't rituals change as everything does?

You have to ask the Priest. To each his or her own personal Valhalla.

Should we all be coating our own mamoth wet plates in a tent?

Please note that there was no 'should' in anything I said. There are or rather were those who rejected the entire notion of coated film as a replacement for glass plates. The most stubborn just die off, is all. The argument never ends.

These acts make sense because they recognize the symbolic nature of the "Original"and are just a replacement of one symbol with another.

Cheers,
Gary

Technicians may state that ritual is symbolism. Priests may state in return that ritual is the REASON that the magic works. No symbolism about it - if they didn't do it in a darkroom, it ain't been done.

One always assumes that others can grok our logic - but sometimes it ain't about logic. I'm just figuring out that part myself - otherwise, I was right there with ya.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[BrianShaw]

Bill, Maybe I'm not sure what you are saying here, but don't rituals change as everything does?

I'm not a priest... but I used to be an altar boy.

Sure, ritual changes, but it's most common for ritual to change at the speed of evolution, not revolution. Vatican II darn near destroyed the Catholic Church... and maybe still will succeed at that. Just ask yourself this... where did all of the good hymns go, and why are we singing this nonsensical drivvle. Oh... well... that's a totally different conversation.

This is the problem we are seeing in photography. Too much is changing too fast.

 

[Finder]

I shoot film because I want to. I don't use digital because I cannot see the reason in investing in it, especially since my film system works so well.

Perference about print quality is subjective and akin to asking for the difinitive answer on which is the best color.


BTW, it is blue. 😉

 

[Stephanie Brim]

...Mass said in Latin (with incense and choir)...

Bill Mattocks

I am not religious, but even *I* enjoy this. I've only gotten to witness it twice, I think. I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic school.

 

[John Camp]

Stephanie, if you ever get north to St. Paul, there's a Catholic Chruch here (I think it's St. Agnes) that has a Latin high mass every Sunday, with classical music provided by paid professional musicians (as oposed to enthusiastic volunteers.) I'm not especially religious, either, although I spent my first six school years at All Saints in Cedar Rapids...but this is something else. They do the Bach Mass about every year, I think; it is definitely worth experiencing.

JC

 

[yossarian]

I've never had the devotion to the darkroom that I've had to manipulating the camera. This is not a proud admission and is indicative of my lazy streak. A few
years ago I spent 8 straight hours in the darkroom at the lab where I was working,
on my day off, to get one print. I knew what I wanted before I started, and I had
to resist the temptation to settle for "good enough" because it was to be a gift for a
very special, very important friend. Ultimately, I got what I was after and I felt like
I'd been running a marathon. I was never really patient enough for good darkroom
work. Until that day. It was gratifying and fulfilling, but not something I could do
regularly.

I do, however, always enjoy peeping at my slides through a good, sharp loupe. Digital
doesn't have anything like that--how do you transilluminate a digital file? I don't enjoy sitting at this computer hours on end manipulating files. That's just me. I
have to admire anyone with the fortitude to do so.

For me, digital is one thing--no waiting. When I shoot, everything is jpeg, and I get
what I get. What's there is what my lab prints. Just like my film. That's the way it
seems to work for me and I don't foresee any changes in my methods, however
"incorrect" they may be. A digital camera which produces an image which MUST
be massaged in order to appear pleasing is less than useless to me--it is an absurd
waste of money, time, and sanity.

As I said, this is just my method. It seems to suit me.

Fred

 

[DougK]

I have a friend who has several of my prints hanging in her house and office. I never tell her how I got the shot, but she can always tell which are film and which are digital (same lab doing the printing work using photographic paper for both formats, they do a great job). I wouldn't know which was which myself if I hadn't taken the photo. I asked her about this once and she just shrugged and said "There's more you in the stuff you do with film."

Maybe she's right.

 

[bmattock]

The moving hand writes, and having writ
Moves on, and all thy piety and all thy wit
Can't lure it back to cancel half a line
And all thy tears can't wash away a word of it.

-Omar Khayyam

 

[PeterL]

In the second place, and for me this is far more important, I find farting around with images in photoshop (or any other similar program) a huge chore. Far more of a chore than simply walking into a little lab you've designed and built to meet your needs, taking a look at a contact sheet, deciding which one you want to make in 11/x14, and just doing it.

I remember playing around in an image editor on a Commodore 64 in my teen years and loving it. Then I remember having images scanned 5 years ago and doing some quick edits (rotate until the horizon is straight, remove a bit of dust, crop off the borders of the scan) on PC. The PC is very, very comfortable for a few things, but much, much more sterile for most operations.

In the third place, I like operating in the real, physical world of actual light sensitive paper, photochemicals, a mechanical enlarger, negative carriers, manually focusing a Schneider lens, adjusting the easel, making the exposure, then turning to the trays to see what you've got.

When I was still doing my own development&printing, I found it extremely relaxing. There's no rush at all: when the print is developing, it's developing and there's nothing you can do about it. It turned into a kind of trance after a while.

I'm wondering what the future will bring, when I'm going back to work (quit work to study). My job used to involve a lot of travel, so I was thinking of going digital. The main advantage is instant gratification: I can copy the photos to my PC, do that bit of editing and upload&share in minutes. On the other hand, the opposite road is also appealing: slowing down in between the job stress with an all-mechanical marvel, then back home, diving into the dark room & enjoying some manual labour and all the satisfaction that brings. A middle road could be to develop the film myself & get a good scanner (Epson V700 looks appealing).

Thanks for some inspiring posts in this thread. I've put Camera Lucida on my book wish list. And Bill, I love the T-shirt you're wearing in your avatar (though the message doesn't correspond with the content of your posts).


Peter.

 

[Trius]

The look of a good fibre based print is hard to beat but there are various inkjet papers that purport to be very similar has anybody used one?

Toby: Haven't used one, but yesterday I saw a workprint sample on some new paper that was heavyweight fibre. I had gone in to a digital lab to investigate their scanning services.

The print was very, very nice (except for metamerism which was fixed in the final), and I was suitably impressed. The printer was an Epson (don't know which model) with the newish greyscale inks.

The paper had the look of a glossy, air-dried fibre photo paper.

I didn't inquire about image longevity.

Earl

 

[jaapv]

I like this; a sensible and friendly film vs digital thread 🙂 I think that we must differentiate between B&W and colour. That B&W generally produces better results from film and own darkroom prints is something that very few, even the most fanatical digifundamentalist would dispute. In colour however, Photoshop gives the same, or better, control than the wet darkroom, which most of us don't have for colour anyway.And there are some thing photoshop can do uniquely: last night I spent 30 mins cloning out a blizzard of "snowflakes" that some idiot had splattered on my blue sky with bleach-fix (thank you Dixons, and also for the dustbunnies!) and effected a perfect repair. If one has the files printed on classic photopaper the results are really indistinguishable and cleaner than all-analog prints.

 

[gns]

If anyone is interested, here is somewhat of a testimonial for digital ("Pigment on Paper") printing...

http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm


Cheers,
Gary

 

[RJBender]

I have to learn more about Platinotypes.
More information HERE.

R.J.

 

[hoot]

Why do so many tourists take the Trans-Siberian Railway from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok when they can get there much quicker by airplane?

Analog photography isn't about getting better results anymore. Neither does it lend your finished picture greater artistic merit than if you'd used a digicam and inkjet. Say what you will; ultimately, analog photography is about emphasizing the journey.

 

[VinceC]

>>ultimately, analog photography is about emphasizing the journey.<<

Quite true.

 

[Derkduit@xs4all]

The look of a good fibre based print is hard to beat but there are various inkjet papers that purport to be very similar has anybody used one?

Toby,

i have experience with Innova 210gsm Photo Gloss FibaPrint paper (http://www.innovaart.com/photo_apps.html) in combination with a Epson 2400 and got some stunning results.
At the academy where i study we are required to make "wet" and digital prints but it becomes harder and harder to keep the results apart, even for the teachers whom are al experienced prof. photographers.