Why film?

[jsrockit]

I've got an Epson P800 and print a lot, but the cost of ink and paper troubles me. I'm considering the book approach instead. Not as nice quality, I'm sure, but you could print a Blurb book for the price on one ink cartridge.

And there's a lot to be said for having a collection under one cover. I think a book mindset would suit my approach to photography.

John

Yeah John, you can still use the P800 for the great photos and make the books for the good ones. My books are editing devices. A way to see my photos in a way other than the screen. They aren't the same as a well done print for sure, but they are their own special object.

 

[cz23]

Garbage in, garbage out....

Weak theory. Believe me, I've got plenty of film photographs that can safely be considered garbage. I expect you do, too.

 

[jsrockit]

Garbage in, garbage out. Digital images are often low effort, low time, low cost; therefore they are perceived as being low value.

Film images often (but not always) require much more effort, time and cost to capture, process and print; so their perceived value is much higher. Like everything in life, the more effort and time you put into something, the greater significance and value becomes attached to it. It's no wonder many digital photos are considered low value and throw-away.

https://petapixel.com/2012/03/14/wi...-pigment-prints-fetch-5-9-million-at-auction/

 

[ptpdprinter]

Garbage in, garbage out. Digital images are often low effort, low time, low cost; therefore they are perceived as being low value.

It depends entirely how you shoot. I shot digital like I shoot film, so I have about the same percentage of keepers.

Film images often (but not always) require much more effort, time and cost to capture, process and print; so their perceived value is much higher.

But you also say:

I find B&W and colour wet printing much cheaper than inkjet. I think the last time I worked it out for colour it was something like 20% of the cost, based on 16 x 12 prints on Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak RA4 chemicals.

Perhaps the issue is your own perceptions of value. Generalizing from you own perceptions is a dodgy enterprise. Faulty generalization is a fallacy of formal logic.

 

[jsrockit]

What I'm saying is: no effort in = no value out.

Why do you perceive digital photography to not be making an effort?

 

[ptpdprinter]

https://petapixel.com/2012/03/14/wi...-pigment-prints-fetch-5-9-million-at-auction/

I thought this comment was significant coming from the director of Christie's photo department:

"Eggleston has been kind of stuck in the old school world of the photography collectors for a long time, whose primary concerns are about process, print type, print date, etcetera. […] for contemporary art collectors it’s much more about the object itself—they couldn’t care if it’s a dye transfer or a pigment print or whatever, as long as the object itself is totally amazing, that’s what they care about."

The collection of Eggleston's inkjet prints brought in $5.7 million dollars.

 

[jsrockit]

Because I've done both, and I found digital photography to be a relatively shallow and effort-free activity. YMMV as they say.

Just my experience and opinion.

That's fair... you can enjoy one over the other for sure. However, there is plenty of fine work done digitally which had required an enormous amount of effort. To do anything well is not easy.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Because I've done both, and I found digital photography to be a relatively shallow and effort-free activity. YMMV as they say.

Just my experience and opinion.

Just because you approach digital photography in a shallow and effort-free manner, there is no cause to attribute that attitude to others.

I recall Dan Burkholder saying you are judged on your final work product, and you don't get extra credit for effort.

 

[Dogman]

It depends entirely how you shoot. I shot digital like I shoot film, so I have about the same percentage of keepers....

I too shoot digital like I shot film. My approach is the same. I really don't know any other way to do it. Of course, I approach color and B&W in different manners, whether digital or film.

Photography has always seemed pretty easy for me to do--again, whether digital or film. That's probably based on my incredibly simple tastes.

 

[sjones]

I too shoot digital like I shot film. My approach is the same. I really don't know any other way to do it. Of course, I approach color and B&W in different manners, whether digital or film.

Photography has always seemed pretty easy for me to do--again, whether digital or film. That's probably based on my incredibly simple tastes.

For folks who started with film, the tendency to unleash like a machine-gun after switching to digital is probably not as pronounced. Embedded methods are not necessarily or universally subject to change.

And as I stated earlier in this thread, film did slow me down, but I’ll add that’s not to say if I had stuck with digital, I wouldn't have eventually adopted a more deliberate approach.

And of course, how different tools might affect a user, if at all, will depend on the individual.

 

[sjones]

Just because you approach digital photography in a shallow and effort-free manner, there is no cause to attribute that attitude to others.

I recall Dan Burkholder saying you are judged on your final work product, and you don't get extra credit for effort.

Exactly, the means can provide an interesting backstory, and it can add value to the photographer’s personal experience, but in the end, it is, for the viewer, the photograph that matters.

For Ansel Adam’s ‘Moonrise, Hernandez’ photograph, Adams recalled how he pulled over the family car, quickly set up the gear, and used his knowledge of the moon’s illumination to meter. He further noted that after taking the first exposure, the lighting dramatically changed, effectively imposing a one time opportunity.

However, had this photo been created by someone using a full-auto digital camera, the photograph would ultimately still retain its aesthetic appeal, at least for me.

If we are to place value and importance on measures of complexity and difficulty, I would think we should be arguing for the use of glass plates and similar methods of the past.

While the increasing ‘convenience’ of photography appears to undermine the craftsmanship of the process, it actually proves that simplicity’s ongoing infusion, whether marked by the introduction of the Brownie box or advent of digital, has failed to curtail the elusiveness of exceptional photography.

 

[Contarama]

After much thought about Mr. Pierce's question I am shooting film again (after about a four year hiatus) because my skills have grown enough (after four years of immersion in digital) to cause a desire to see if I can become as competant with a film camera as I now am with a digital camera. The act of creating with the two processes is also very important to me. I only seriously got into the hobby in about 2010 so many of you are way ahead of me photographically speaking. I genuinely love both. They say no question is a bad question and I believe BP's question and the replies in this thread have been enlightening for me. Thanks to all involved in this thread.

 

[PKR]

What I find with work related stuff..photos for money.. is art directors don't want to pay for the detailed prep time that went into much "Film" studio work. They want all those little things fixed in post production. And, they don't want to pay for the post production time. Lots of photographers who can get away with it refuse to do this. And, many have raised their rates. Many jobs are bid on these days and many costs are added to the agreed bid amount as per changes made during the shoot.

I didn't like darkroom work. I didn't see the Magic BS of a print coming out of the first tray that some others see. I also really dislike doing post production work. I'm happy to do it for my personal work, but would rather not be in front of a monitor. I do love the finished product, silver or digital.

Almost no work related stuff is quality printed by clients, unless it's for office décor.

Photography has really changed in the past 10-15 years. The art collectors still want a quality crafted print, silver or pigment. Most curators want silver if available but, pigment prints have made their way into galleries and are equal to silver for their archival qualities. Chromogenic prints are great for proofing and the latest C technology is far better than in the past. Fujifilm claims their C materials archival, making big machine prints my choice for big stuff.

In my experience, hand crafted Silver still is the most preferred media for most art buyers.

Gursky's Rhine II is a large (machine made) Chromogenic Silver Print. He's no longer called a photographer.. but now a "Visual Artist".

"Extraneous details such as dog-walkers and a factory building were removed by the artist using digital editing.[4] Justifying this manipulation of the image, Gursky said "Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

As art goes, I think you can alter a photograph anyway you like, as long as you're honest about what's been done. This obviously doesn't apply to Photo Journalism or Evidence Photos where, I'm sure it's done more than we know.

 

[tunalegs]

I have a friend who uses the term "tryhardability" when referring to those who seek credit for "effort". Viewers, buyers, etc. don't care about tryhardability. But tryhardability is distinctly different from craft. Saying viewers, buyers, only care about what a photo looks like is to dismiss such people as only caring about the art on the most superficial level (or as not caring about it at all). Craft does matter, as do materials - and if materials and craft are intertwined with a concept, may mean as much in the final work as the image itself. True, probably nobody cares that you took the time to make a platinum print over a silver print on RC paper, but a lot of people will appreciate that it is a platinum print. And they are usually willing to pay for it too.

Back to the original post, I don't buy that digital "quality" is equal to or better than film. I don't know what that means. What quality? This is like saying a clarinet has better quality than a piano, or that a watercolor has better quality than an oil painting. If we're not specifying which qualities we're talking about, it's sort of a useless comparison. Film has qualities digital does not - cannot have - and digital has qualities film does not have.

I'll have to add, I've yet to find a digital camera that is satisfying to use, even if I've found many that, at least on a technical level, are capable enough.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Craft does matter, as do materials - and if materials and craft are intertwined with a concept, may mean as much in the final work as the image itself. True, probably nobody cares that you took the time to make a platinum print over a silver print on RC paper, but a lot of people will appreciate that it is a platinum print. And they are usually willing to pay for it too.

I have a bunch of archivally processed fiber based silver gelatin print rejects in a box. I use them to test toners and practice spotting. Maybe I should try to sell them instead. I'm sure a purchaser would appreciate the materials and craft that went into making them, even though the resulting images aren't up to my standards. Come to think of it, I see a lot of those kind of images on gallery walls. I also do platinum printing. Maybe someone would buy my rejects of those too since they are platinum. Seriously, I may be in the minority here, but if the image isn't compelling, I don't think process matters much.

 

[tunalegs]

I have a bunch of archival processed fiber based silver gelatin print rejects in a box. I use them to test toners and practice spotting. Maybe I should try to sell them instead. I'm sure a purchaser would appreciate the materials and craft that went into making them, even though the resulting images aren't up to my standards. Come to think of it, I see a lot of those kind of images on gallery walls.

I like that you took "materials matter" to mean "only materials matter".

You need to up your troll game if you want to fool people into believing you're the sort of person who lives in a cardboard box because a house made out of wood and stuff would be pointless to you.

 

[valdas]

I have a bunch of archivally processed fiber based silver gelatin print rejects in a box. I use them to test toners and practice spotting. Maybe I should try to sell them instead. I'm sure a purchaser would appreciate the materials and craft that went into making them, even though the resulting images aren't up to my standards. Come to think of it, I see a lot of those kind of images on gallery walls. I also do platinum printing. Maybe someone would buy my rejects of those too since they are platinum. I may be in the minority here, but if the image isn't compelling, I don't think process matters much.

I guess saying that materials and craft do matter does not mean it is a sufficient condition (or guarantee) of value... However materials and craft that leads to "rejects" does not prove the opposite is correct.

 

[jsrockit]

and the latest C technology is far better than in the past. Fujifilm claims their C materials archival, making big machine prints my choice for big stuff.

Gursky's Rhine II is a large (machine made) Chromogenic Silver Print. He's no longer called a photographer.. but now a "Visual Artist".

"Extraneous details such as dog-walkers and a factory building were removed by the artist using digital editing.[4] Justifying this manipulation of the image, Gursky said "Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

As art goes, I think you can alter a photograph anyway you like, as long as you're honest about what's been done. This obviously doesn't apply to Photo Journalism or Evidence Photos where, I'm sure it's done more than we know.

I was wondering about that today... when I read his huge prints were C-Prints. We know they are some of the most expensive photos ever sold. I figured something had to have changed in the technology or people wouldn't be buying these C-Prints.

 

[jsrockit]

Craft does matter, as do materials - and if materials and craft are intertwined with a concept, may mean as much in the final work as the image itself.

I think this is a good point. One can have a great concept, but if the craft and materials used are poor, it could break the project. However, even sometimes that works too... at least it has in music.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I guess saying that materials and craft do matter does not mean it is a sufficient condition (or guarantee) of value... However materials and craft that leads to "rejects" does not prove the opposite is correct.

I believe materials and craft can enhance the value of a compelling image, but do not create value in and of themselves.