Concepts Do you care about your photography?

[Harlequin565]

This is something that comes up quite a bit in my classes. When I ask people "why" they too a photo (in a genuine questioning-the-reason way, and not a combative way) I very often get a shrug. This can vary from beginner (which I sort of expect) to advanced (which I find odd).

There are many times when I don't really care about the image. If I'm testing a lens/film/camera and just want an image to prove something works or doesn't. Or when I have a few frames left on a roll and want to develop the film. Or if I'm just messing about with an idea - not sure if it will work or not. But I wouldn't present these images as "my work" mainly because they're not "me".

After watching Adrian's "Curse of the Photographer" video that Chris posted, I wondered if I was ever dissatisfied with an image I'd made. The only images that fall into this category are ones I didn't care too much about taking.

A few years ago, I won the (TP) POTY January comp with a photo of Castlerigg. Technically it was ok and was taken very much with a "following the rules" mentality. A little over-cooked with HDR (IMO), but it was lovely lighting and had the traditional "rock in the foreground". It got the most votes, and I was quite chuffed to win. I won a print of it, and it's still on the wall downstairs. But whenever I walk past it, over the years, I have become more and more dissatisfied with it. It's decor - pure & simple - but it has so little meaning to me, I find it emotionally empty. I have other photos scattered around my office that are far less "decorous" but I enjoy them far more because they have much more meaning.

I guess what I'm saying is, for me, I need to have a connection to an image for it to mean something to me. And if I don't, then I very quickly become detached from it - whether I've taken it or someone else has. I was wondering whether this was a "me" thing, or something others experience, or is it something common to all photographers? (the ones who take pictures for themselves that is, not for comps, or for clients)

[Edit, I'll add some examples in a bit...]

 

[sirch]

I think that perhaps I care too much. I can go out with a digital camera all day and only come back with a handful of shots, I went out to test that Kodak 1A last weekend and I had to keep reminding myself that I was testing the camera and yes I should just take the shot and not reject the scene and move on.

For me the connection needs to be there, I have thought about going to places like the Norfolk Broads for a weekend because I see some lovely images from there but then I dissuade myself because it is not an area of the country I know and it is not the type of landscape that I feel a strong connection to. I do shoot things that I don't really care much about for things like FPOTY but I find that hard and I think it shows in the end results. The photos that have done best for me in that and other comps and challenges are the ones where I have put in a lot of effort and care.

That said I would struggle to put into words "why", why do I like moody landscapes? I don't know but I like being in those landscapes and I like looking at photos of those landscapes. However that is a bit self referential, I photograph them because I like them, I like them so I photograph them, and doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory explanation of why.

 

[Dave Canon]

I was in a discussion with some photographers yesterday evening and I mentioned that just taking a camera out and hoping to get some good images never (or rarely) works for me so most of my photography is planned either by going to an event where I can expect opportunities for good shots or it is a specific thing/place I wish to photograph and I plan accordingly. Most agreed with that but one fairly experienced photographer said that she just went out and snapped what she saw with no planning and did not care to think about it too much.

 

[g4aaw]

Hello Ian

Yes, WHY?
I take pictures purely for pleasure. If I see something that might ‘look’ ok, after reviewing the shot, I often think ‘ugh’.
I have many that I’m very pleased with – and many, not.
It’s all part of my learning curve.

Let’s face it, if you’ve spent far too much money on your gear, not using it is a bit daft.
Having taken a pleasing (to me) shot, it’s justified.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It occurs to me that there are only two types of photographer: those who want to be "artists" and those who want to report what they have seen.

I'm pretty much the second type and if I can't make something interesting, then I see no point in recording it.

Of course, that's an aspiration I don't always fulfill.

 

[Harlequin565]

if I can't make something interesting, then I see no point in recording it.

Isn't that the difference between recording and art? (I know there are semantics there so forgive me). By making a decision that a scene is interesting (subjective) and recording it, you are applying your vision to the scene and thus creating art. Arguably, every time I put a viewfinder to my eye I am limiting what I can see and thus have to move a bit to construct what I want in the frame - this then becomes a conscious effort which = art. Even the hipshooting street togs will curate & crop their random photos that they couldn't even see, to better frame their image.

I'm not sure it's as simple as binary art/record for me, but then I guess everyone gets to have their own vision.

As a viewer of your images, I enjoy [some of] them, which by my own OP implies I see a connection in there that means more than "it's just a snap - scroll on by".

For me - that third image is really engaging. The guy looks fed up and miserable, but what elevates it is the stuff hanging on a rope in the window. It seems to echo that melancholy feel.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

By making a decision that a scene is interesting (subjective) and recording it, you are applying your vision to the scene and thus creating art.

I don't set out to create art.

All I want to do is share what I've seen and I present it in a manner as close as I can to what I saw. If you want to consider it art, fine. At the end of the day, the creator proposes but the consumer disposes, to misquote something along those lines.

 

[Dave Canon]

It occurs to me that there are only two types of photographer: those who want to be "artists" and those who want to report what they have seen.

Why can't you be both, I certainly am. Some photography I do would be considered artistic (probably way over the top for many of you) but I also do documentary as well. The boundary between these can also be unclear. I also would say most photographers I know also are in both categories.

Dave

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Why can't you be both, I certainly am.

Different people, different strokes.

 

[sirch]

Surely every photo except accidental firings of the shutter was taken with some kind of intent? Somebody decided to point the camera in a particular direction and press the button so every photo, even the misfires record something, even if it's just the inside of the lens cap. I believe this thread is about the amount of care that people take and knowing why they are pointing the camera in a particular direction. If that is because "it caught my eye" or it is unusual or unexpected then that is why. There is then the care, did you frame it well, did you check the verticals, did you get the exposure right, did you choose a particular DoF. In a certain context all those things are the art of photography.

 

[KIPAX]

I may be over thinking this but I am thinking your all over thinking taking pictures

When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk - Tuco the Ugly

 

[Harlequin565]

I think I derailed my own thread.

Thinking is hard.

Thanks for summary Chris. Bob on.

 

[sirch]

I may be over thinking this but I am thinking your all over thinking taking pictures

This forum is exactly for over thinking/thinking over taking pictures there is even a special prefix - Concepts - for it

Live and let live, I say

 

[myotis]

A few years ago, I won the (TP) POTY January comp with a photo of Castlerigg. Technically it was ok and was taken very much with a "following the rules" mentality. A little over-cooked with HDR (IMO), but it was lovely lighting and had the traditional "rock in the foreground". It got the most votes, and I was quite chuffed to win. I won a print of it, and it's still on the wall downstairs. But whenever I walk past it, over the years, I have become more and more dissatisfied with it. It's decor - pure & simple - but it has so little meaning to me, I find it emotionally empty. I have other photos scattered around my office that are far less "decorous" but I enjoy them far more because they have much more meaning.

I guess what I'm saying is, for me, I need to have a connection to an image for it to mean something to me. And if I don't, then I very quickly become detached from it - whether I've taken it or someone else has. I was wondering whether this was a "me" thing, or something others experience, or is it something common to all photographers? (the ones who take pictures for themselves that is, not for comps, or for clients)

[Edit, I'll add some examples in a bit...]

I have waited until posting my other thread on "What kind of photograph is it" on scoring the function and expressiveness of a photograph, before answering this. I wanted to use my explanation in that post to help reduce the length of my answer here.

I think the difference you describe depends on what proportion of the photograph is "functional" and what proportion is "expressive".

To use the examples from my other post. For me, even one of my good bird in flight photographs loses most of its meaning to me over time because the exhilaration of capturing it wanes over time, and it becomes just a good record photograph of a bird (i.e. a photograph with a high functional score) .

I also think this is why I find so many bird and landscape photographs of only passing interest (even though these are the subjects I'm interested in), because after an initial reaction of that's a nice shot, and some admiration for the technical skills involved, their is nothing much left to stimulate my mind or emotions.

With my own photographs and with those made by other people, the more I think I can feel or see, the hand, heart and mind of the photographer in the photograph (ie the higher the expressive score), the more I am drawn to spend time studying it, and the stronger the connection I can develop with it.

 

[Harlequin565]

With my own photographs and with those made by other people, the more I think I can feel or see, the hand, heart and mind of the photographer in the photograph

This was a very thought provoking comment to me.

I find that I have significantly more interest in photographs made my my students simply because I *know* more thought and effort has gone into them, because they are taking the time to try and learn something. Likewise, I am more interested in photographs "by certain forum members" because again - I know they are thinking before pressing the shutter, or have taken time to compose their image. I am more likely to comment on "critique" threads when the photographer has said "this is what I was trying to do" than I am on threads with no comments, just a photo.

It's one of the reasons I spend more time in the F&C section and that's because I believe that film photographers are more likely to care more about their photographs than digital due to the limitations of their equipment. Of course there are exceptions to this [in both camps too!], and that was not intended to be a sweeping generalisation.

 

[myotis]

That said I would struggle to put into words "why", why do I like moody landscapes? I don't know but I like being in those landscapes and I like looking at photos of those landscapes. However that is a bit self referential, I photograph them because I like them, I like them so I photograph them, and doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory explanation of why.

I empathise with this and I can offer my explanation.

I like bad weather, when it's windy, rainy, foggy etc I think there is a much greater sense of being "in" the landscape and not just "looking" at it.

In those conditions, often the only details you can see are of things close up, and the more distant subjects only give a detail-less impression of the wider landscape. A lot of the time you are spent with your head down looking at small details of the landscape, or if stopped for coffee, studying the shapes and textures of the rocks 2m away because that's s far as you can see.

Trying to photographing this experience tends to therefore encourage (as a generalisation) moody type grand landscapes and small scale more abstract and intimate detailed landscapes.

I like looking at these types of photographs because I think I recognise a photographer with the same feelings for the landscape as I have and I can connect with the photographs.

And, as they are always making better photographers than I am, it seems inevitable my photographs will be influenced by theirs.

What is much more difficult to put into words is why some moody or intimate landscapes do absolutely nothing for me.

 

[myotis]

I find that I have significantly more interest in photographs made my my students simply because I *know* more thought and effort has gone into them, because they are taking the time to try and learn something. Likewise, I am more interested in photographs "by certain forum members" because again - I know they are thinking before pressing the shutter, or have taken time to compose their image. I am more likely to comment on "critique" threads when the photographer has said "this is what I was trying to do" than I am on threads with no comments, just a photo.

It's a very different experience to look at an isolated and anonymous work of art (photograph or painting, etc) than to look at it in context of the photographer or/and situation.

Knowing something about the personal life and aspirations of the photographer can add to that experience (an interview, presentation, biography, autobiography etc). Following someone's photographic career can make a substantial difference to how you react to their photographs.

Knowing the rationale behind the photograph, especially conceptual work, may be impossible to appreciate or understand without knowing the context underpinning the work.

What time period they are from could also be important. In 50 years time, knowing the world was in a pandemic, and major cities were locked down, is going to affect the way they look at photographs of London in the 2020's.

I won't go on, but I think the more you know about photography (history, technique, philosophy etc) and the photographer behind the photograph, the more interesting and satisfying photographs and photography becomes.

 

[Ed Sutton]

It's one of the reasons I spend more time in the F&C section and that's because I believe that film photographers are more likely to care more about their photographs than digital due to the limitations of their equipment. Of course there are exceptions to this [in both camps too!], and that was not intended to be a sweeping generalisation.

I find difficult to get my head round this notion of 'caring'. I certainly don't see why the chosen recording medium matters. The only difference between when I shot film and shooting digital is that I take more chances. They don't all pay off, but just because a picture doesn't 'work' doesn't mean it wasn't carefully considered. Unlike the recommendation I've seen to delete all your failures I keep most of mine. If you have tried and failed there is probably something there which can be learned from.

Just think of all those famous paintings which have been X-rayed to reveal how the first thoughts were scraped off and second and third attempts made. The initial version wasn't ill-considered, it just didn't work. You could argue that it was because the painter DID care that they weren't prepared to settle for what they started with.

 

[myotis]

I find difficult to get my head round this notion of 'caring'. I certainly don't see why the chosen recording medium matters. The only difference between when I shot film and shooting digital is that I take more chances.

It might be because, given the ease of digital, you need to have a deeper interest in photography, than most people, before you commit to, and stick with, the film route.

I'm not in anyway saying that people who shoot digital don't care about their photographs, I'm just suggesting that the nuances of being a film photographer, means that "caring photographers" may well make up a majority of the analog world, but only a minority of the digital world, even if the absolute numbers will be much higher.

 

[Harlequin565]

It might be because, given the ease of digital, you need to have a deeper interest in photography, than most people, before you commit to, and stick with, the film route.

This is where I was coming from and I was hopefully careful enough to say that it wasn't intended as a sweeping generalisation.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

It might be because, given the ease of digital, you need to have a deeper interest in photography, than most people, before you commit to, and stick with, the film route.

I'm not in anyway saying that people who shoot digital don't care about their photographs, I'm just suggesting that the nuances of being a film photographer, means that "caring photographers" may well make up a majority of the analog world, but only a minority of the digital world, even if the absolute numbers will be much higher.

The converse could be true as well, with a digital camera you are not fighting technicalities, external lightmeter, manual focus etc, and can just concentrate on the image (composition/framing/etc) - therefore you can immerse yourself in the image. With a film camera you can do this as well, but often you are also immersing yourself in the process.

I think that if you care, you care about the image, then the technical side of the process (the transport medium from viewfinder to print) isn't relevant. But I do understand the tactile process of using different types of cameras, and often we let this 'emotion' get in the way.

 

[myotis]

The converse could be true as well, with a digital camera you are not fighting technicalities, external lightmeter, manual focus etc, and can just concentrate on the image (composition/framing/etc) - therefore you can immerse yourself in the image. With a film camera you can do this as well, but often you are also immersing yourself in the process.

It certainly could be, and often is. I also think it's fabulous that digital has made photography so much more accessible to so many more people, but I fear it might require a thread all of it's own to fully discuss.

Personally, I love all the tools that a digital camera gives me for my bird photography, and compared to my film days with manual focus lenses it's much easier to concentrate on getting the shot than it ever was.

With landscape, I have very different feelings and I don't feel immersing myself in the process, detracts from immersing myself in the image. Indeed the "ritual" of the process is part of the experience for me.

As I manually focus I am looking very closely across the image and thinking very hard about where I should focus. When I manually set the exposure I am looking very hard at how the tones change across the image, and as I still often use a handheld spotmeter, I try to think hard about how the different tones will be exposed and relate to each other. Composition and framing is independent to this of course, but once you add it all up, I've spent a lot of time closely connecting with the subject. For landscapes, my digital process is pretty well identical to my film process.

While I accept, this is my problem, I find that when I use AF, or AE, or indeed even zooms, my connection with the image is less immersive than when I do it all manually, because there is less to keep me focussed on what I need to do. Indeed I often find "fighting" the AF or AE to much more irritating and distracting than using manual options.

But I've picked two extremes and the great thing about digital for me is that it offers choices that film never did. Sometimes, AF, AE and a zoom is exactly the right choice.

I think that if you care, you care about the image, then the technical side of the process (the transport medium from viewfinder to print) isn't relevant.

100% agree with this, my explanation was just trying to expand on Ian's comment "I believe that film photographers are more likely to care more about their photographs than digital due to the limitations of their equipment."

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But I do understand the tactile process of using different types of cameras, and often we let this 'emotion' get in the way.

I have certainly found that different cameras encourage me to do different styles of picture. That's why, at one time I carried a Rolleiflex and a Leica - both film but the output seemed quite different...

 

[sirch]

I like bad weather, when it's windy, rainy, foggy etc I think there is a much greater sense of being "in" the landscape and not just "looking" at it.

This is nicely put, the weather connects one physically with the environment. But i think for me the explanation is perhaps different to yours. A simple explanation is that moody weather gives better light, patches of light through clouds that pick out parts of the landscape for example. I also have an earth sciences background so when I look at a landscape I see a history, rock types, glacial features and the weather is one of the processes that has sculpted that landscape over time and again mixed light gives more opportunity for these features to be picked out in the photo.

That said I guess that ultimately I am a somewhat moody person and I just prefer the sublime to the pretty

 

[myotis]

I have certainly found that different cameras encourage me to do different styles of picture. That's why, at one time I carried a Rolleiflex and a Leica - both film but the output seemed quite different...

View attachment 342438

I agree with that.

I mentioned enjoying the ritual of making/taking photographs, and that ritual changes with the camera I use and affects how I interact with the subject. The other thing that has this affect is using or not using a tripod.

 

[myotis]

This is nicely put, the weather connects one physically with the environment. But i think for me the explanation is perhaps different to yours. A simple explanation is that moody weather gives better light, patches of light through clouds that pick out parts of the landscape for example. I also have an earth sciences background so when I look at a landscape I see a history, rock types, glacial features and the weather is one of the processes that has sculpted that landscape over time and again mixed light gives more opportunity for these features to be picked out in the photo.

That said I guess that ultimately I am a somewhat moody person and I just prefer the sublime to the pretty

Yes that's a good point, and I fully understand both examples. I like the idea of you not just looking "at" the landscape but also looking "into" it.

As part of my degree, we had a physical geography residential field trip. Because it was St Andrews University my"residential" field trip was something I could have done from home. But travelling around Fife having the physical geography and some geology explained for landscape features I had grown up with completely changed the way I looked at them. I felt much closer to my home county after the field trip than I had before.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I wonder if this will be relevant?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDE-e7hsEUI&ab_channel=ThePhotographicEye

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I’m a bit late to this discussion as I’ve only just stumbled across this area of the forum!

The stuff I specialise in is where I feel I make my best work. I feel I have a connection and interest in the subject (industry and mechanical stuff) that allows me to interpret it in my photographs in a way that is meaningful to me. What is my ‘why’? It’s a combination of my upbringing, education, working life and environment (amongst other things) that has manifested in a desire to record and interpret the vanishing landscape that I grew up in. This is what interests me and drives me to wander windswept moorland, abandoned buildings and old quarries, in the same way that others look for beauty in landscapes, pretty girls and still life.

The debate about film photography is interesting. I know that for some (but I must emphasise, not all) it’s the process that interests them, the craft of producing a wonderfully toned black and white print. Many years ago when I was in a camera club for a while, some members were getting all giddy about a monochrome print of an RNLI lifeboat. I thought it was average at best and couldn’t get excited about it, but everyone else was wowed by the quality of the printing, but had somehow overlooked the fact that the photograph itself wasn’t that interesting. Each to their own, but I’d rather not be slave to the process, it’s always subject first for me.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...I’d rather not be slave to the process, it’s always subject first for me.

 

[droj]

There are so many possible strands that can be woven into a photograph - not necessarily all at once! But it seems clear from their output that many a practitioner's first interest is owning and playing with equipment. Let's put that motive aside - it's not central to the topic.

Inescapably photography is a visual medium - its language - its interface - is in the visual realm. There's a craft in presenting visual information that can apply to all photography.

A mere excercise in aesthetics, though, can be hollow of much meaning - and it's meaning that makes an image (or body of images) worthwhile.

Some photographs are primarily of 'things' - they register (document) a person, a thing, a place, an object, an occurrence. They have a reporting function. This can be a valuable communication in the time that the image was made, and have a historical / social or other relevance too.

The nature of some images is more in the realm of visual experience itself - a human / cultural expression. We have the frame, and within that the picture space which can be organised by the photographer to have a certain psychological resonance that might be recognised by others. Not in the somewhat wooden way of saying this is a such and such, but more in the way of direct, non-cerebral engagement.

Ring any bells?

 

[viewfromthenorth]

A mere excercise in aesthetics, though, can be hollow of much meaning - and it's meaning that makes an image (or body of images) worthwhile.

The interpretation of meaning in a photograph is an interesting topic. What I put into the making of a photograph, my intent, how I interpret that scene / file, the subject itself gives it a particular meaning to me, but a viewer can take a different meaning from it when viewed through the lens of their own experience / prejudices.

 

[sirch]

There are so many possible strands that can be woven into a photograph - not necessarily all at once! But it seems clear from their output that many a practitioner's first interest is owning and playing with equipment. Let's put that motive aside - it's not central to the topic.

Inescapably photography is a visual medium - its language - its interface - is in the visual realm. There's a craft in presenting visual information that can apply to all photography.

A mere excercise in aesthetics, though, can be hollow of much meaning - and it's meaning that makes an image (or body of images) worthwhile.

Some photographs are primarily of 'things' - they register (document) a person, a thing, a place, an object, an occurrence. They have a reporting function. This can be a valuable communication in the time that the image was made, and have a historical / social or other relevance too.

The nature of some images is more in the realm of visual experience itself - a human / cultural expression. We have the frame, and within that the picture space which can be organised by the photographer to have a certain psychological resonance that might be recognised by others. Not in the somewhat wooden way of saying this is a such and such, but more in the way of direct, non-cerebral engagement.

Ring any bells?

Very well put, I think that some of the most successful photographs are both. Don Mccullin is a good example where his war reporter photos are both pictures of things and a capture a cultural and psychological resonance

 

[droj]

The interpretation of meaning in a photograph is an interesting topic. What I put into the making of a photograph, my intent, how I interpret that scene / file, the subject itself gives it a particular meaning to me, but a viewer can take a different meaning from it when viewed through the lens of their own experience / prejudices.

Yes indeed, and we all have different cultural backgrounds and expectations - remarkably, however, communication does occur!

 

[sirch]

Upthread there was some discussion of process. In other arts media and process is often considered, almost every painting displayed in a gallery is accompanied by notes on the media, e.g. "oil on canvas", musicians care about Les Paul and Stradivarius so we are not alone or unique in considering process to be relevant to the experience. I think in part it is a selling point, a particular media needs particular skill and the implication is that someone who is say a skilled watercolorist cannot really be compared to someone who paints in oils. There is also the consideration that if someone is paying thousands of pounds for an art work then they want to know that it is going to last and how to care for it. Whilst those things might be selling points they also demonstrate care, the creator, the gallery and everyone involved care not just about the final outcome but also care about all aspects of the process and that care in itself adds value to the whole experience.

However I also wonder if all of that is part of a performance? There is a ritual to be gone through that imbues an aura to a work. Some people seem to like, or at least value works that somehow involved some suffering or difficulty and/or that make the best of a limited medium, monochrome photos are an example of this, they remain popular and are even valued more highly than colour by some. Wet plate collodion has seen a resurgence, I don't think we would be impressed by a collodion photoshop filter but we are (or at least some of us) impressed by someone performing the wet plate process.

I realise that there seem to be two camps in this thread*, some people seem to want and value the ritual and some are not so bothered by that. It is almost like a religious thing, I am not religious and I often wonder of the religious why they end up with such torturous and convoluted ideologies over something which for me simply is a non-issue. I guess those of us in the value-the-process camp seem like that to the other camp and sometimes I wish i could just forget all that and just take photos but I do actively enjoy both performing the rituals and seeing others do so. It might not make for better photos, it might even make them worse, but I do like to suffer for my art, darling



* - the antagonist in me is tempted to say those that care and those that don't but I won't say that

 

[droj]

It could be instructive to consider meaning. To me meaning (in a work) is the crucial hinge on which all forms of appraisal turn.

All work involves & is the product of technique (processes). It seems to me that process is sometimes fetishised & worshipped for itself alone, without necessarily conferring meaning to the work beyond it being a statement / record of processes. This can be so to various degrees, and may apply to the arts in general, not just the visual ones. It can be a limitation rather than a strength.

Generically, outside a clique, I don't think that mono photographs are widely appreciated for their process - most viewers would have no knowledge of that. It remains a very expressive medium, and they are appreciated as the visual statements that they can be.

 

[sirch]

I have moved the off-topic posts to their own thread, please let's keep this on topic

 

[sirch]

Generically, outside a clique, I don't think that mono photographs are widely appreciated for their process - most viewers would have no knowledge of that. It remains a very expressive medium, and they are appreciated as the visual statements that they can be.

My point about mono wasn't about process it was about someone choosing a deliberately constrained medium and as you say that when done well those limitations can enhance the outcome.

 

[Harlequin565]

Having read back through the thread it's interesting to see how discussion on a topic can take it off on a tangent worthy of its own discussion (and I am the worst for it!)

Process vs result is a very interesting one and has a significant impact on me. I simply don't connect to my digital images any more. I find them soul-less which then relies on me to do post processing work to "turn them into" something I like. The single exception to this are "memories" type images of family and friends (and lots of pets!) where the "look" doesn't matter to me. In those cases, subject is king and I have some wonderful photos on both film and digital that evoke special memories for me.

When I go out to do photography on my own, if I have a digital camera, I feel less enthused. I feel like I can take a picture of anything, then just "make it black & white later". This doesn't make me feel focussed. If I go out with colour film in a camera, I look for colour as a relevant part of my image. If I go out with black & white I'm looking at tone and shape and form and seeing the world within the limitations of what I've got with me. Perhaps it's my own inadequacy to be unable to "switch" between those two modes and perhaps I should try harder...

There are an awful lot of camera collectors in the film community, and there are a lot of people who look down their nose at digital photographers taking the "easy way out". But for me, film photography makes me enthusiastic about taking pictures. It forces me to actually look at a scene before I photograph it where digital [to me] is simply "I'll take it and see what it looks like later". I prefer the former way of working because it makes me think. I'm inherently lazy and digital feeds that laziness for me.

It's very interesting to read some of the replies above where the process is inconsequential to some people. I've met people like that on my course(s) and they are very often better photographers for it (IMO). It's not me though. My digital work is clearly sub-par to my film stuff and much of it I attribute to my enthusiasm with the camera in my hand.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

. This doesn't make me feel focussed. If I go out with colour film in a camera, I look for colour as a relevant part of my image. If I go out with black & white I'm looking at tone and shape and form and seeing the world within the limitations of what I've got with me.

..... It forces me to actually look at a scene before I photograph it where digital [to me] is simply "I'll take it and see what it looks like later". I prefer the former way of working because it makes me think. I'm inherently lazy and digital feeds that laziness for me.

Do the limitations that you apply include lens choice? I often just go out with a single prime (or X100 series camera) and find that the constraint I have applied makes me work harder - often resulting in better work as I'm putting more effort in.

A zoom lens could offer you more creative freedom or it could emphasis the 'inherently lazy'

I haven't used a zoom lens for over six months, but often I'm lugging around a bucketful of primes, but I know that one camera/one lens really makes me work harder resulting in better images, for me restrictions are good.

 

[myotis]

When I go out to do photography on my own, if I have a digital camera, I feel less enthused. I feel like I can take a picture of anything, then just "make it black & white later". This doesn't make me feel focussed. If I go out with colour film in a camera, I look for colour as a relevant part of my image. If I go out with black & white I'm looking at tone and shape and form and seeing the world within the limitations of what I've got with me. Perhaps it's my own inadequacy to be unable to "switch" between those two modes and perhaps I should try harder...

By no way am I suggesting this is a definitive answer.

But I tend to treat every picture as as Black and White one and look at "...tone and shape and form..." knowing that if it isn't going to work as black and white, it might work in colour. With some pictures, it's obvious they rely on colour contrast, because the tonal values would translate badly into black and white and once I decide it's going to end up as colour, I switch mental mode.

So, I normally go out with Black and White in mind, but feel free to allow colour to distract me when the picture cries out for it. However, I still leave the final decision until processing as I often get it wrong in the field, and it's this versatility that makes me like digital. I find that good B&W pictures also make good colour pictures (but not the other way round).

My current issue is that after processing an image as black and white, switching off the black and white, but leaving all the other processing as is, often gives me a colour photograph that I prefer to the black and white. So it seems I've just transferred your dilemma from the field, into the studio, but it's possibly an easier place to deal with it.

Another possible approach, which I sort of use, is to think in terms of projects. I have a house martin project that I knew from the beginning was going to be black and white, and I have a woodland project that was going to be black and white, but I think is now going to be in three sections two in colour and only one in black and white. This latter, three section decision, was made half way through the project, but had I made it at the beginning, knowing which section an individual photograph was aimed at would have helped my focus.