Concepts Do you care about your photography?

[droj]

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".

This to me is nonsense, and I can't distinguish between the two media - my approach to image making is the same. The intent is the same, why abandon it?

Colour / mono is a different matter. My norm is to record in colour. This normally leads to a 'safe' exposure, care having been taken not to blow the highlights or block the shadows, and all the material is there for a conversion later if wanted. I may find that some images lack presence in colour but spring to life in mono, where you can really push the tones around ...

 

[myotis]

This to me is nonsense, and I can't distinguish between the two media - my approach to image making is the same. The intent is the same, why abandon it?

I don't feel "much" difference between the two either, and find it a little difficult to fully understand this commonly held concern. But as I said in another thread, a lot of the time, I still use manual focus primes, manual exposure, a hand held spot meter, and a tripod. I selectively use the technological benefits of digital when I can see the benefits, and I love having the choice.

Where it does make an everyday difference to me, is that where as in the past, even after spending considerable time working on a photograph, I might still abandon it at the last minute because it wasn't "working" I might, now a days, still take the shot to see what it looks like as a photograph.

I also like the freedom to "try things out" without needing to be mindful of cost and effort, which probably takes me to places I might never have gone to with film.

 

[sirch]

nonsense

That is a very strong word.

As I said

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.

Each to their own, live and let live

 

[myotis]

Each to their own, live and let live

"...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."

And to emphasise the obvious: there is no reason why you can't appreciate the benefits of both approaches (or something in between) and alternate between them.

 

[Harlequin565]

This to me is nonsense

We clearly have a different approach. For example, I don't see the need to examine highlights and shadows to see if they're blown. In that respect, my "care" is about the subject and less about the technical quality of the image. I could easily see how someone wanting technical perfection would use the best tool & processes for that job.

I think it's important in these discussions not to accuse someone of talking nonsense when they are specifically and clearly talking about their own approach. By all means if I'm telling you "you should be doing it this way", call me out on it.

 

[droj]

I think it's important in these discussions not to accuse someone of talking nonsense

Sorry Ian, I hadn't meant it confrontationally, rather to say that it would be a nonsense for me to be so. I'm suitably chastened & will try to type slower in future ...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the normal way of things, we can not share memories very easily. words help but nothing like as effectively as images.
Photographs makes this possible in a very real way.
Most of the things that I photograph are "Memories", either for myself or to show others.
The more involved that they are the better. and the nearer they become to being an onlooker at the time, the better they work.
this is true whether it is a landscape or a conversation in the pub.

However "realness" and technique go hand in hand. and well timed, composed, exposed, and a well chosen viewpoints always give better results than photographs taken with no thought at all

The actual brand equipment used makes little difference at all, provided it is adequate to do the necessary job.

The pleasure of Photography is all embracing and includes the kit, the occasion, and the the whole craft experience,. they are inseparable. Any individual part of that whole can give pleasure. Just thinking and talking about photography is pleasurable, and learning new things doubly so.

Photography always captures the now, and is always seen as the past, never the future, it has the very nature of captured memories.

 

[droj]

I'm inherently lazy and digital feeds that laziness for me.

I'm in accord with the first part of that statement, not the second - I use digital in the same way that I use (35mm & roll) film. But for me the mechanics of photography are a means to an end - almost an impediment - & I don't think that I subscribe to ritual in my own photography.

For context, my prevalent modus operandi is that I tend not to preconceive images, but discover them on the fly. It's an organic process of being alert to seeing possible images whilst out and about. The response is emotional rather than technical - but for the image to have a chance the technicalities must be paid attention to, which to me largely concerns exposure. The rest happens in real time via the viewfinder as an engagement with framing and focus (I see this as intuitive not technical), and that's the part of taking a photograph that I relish, perhaps simply because it is directly sensory and alive.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm inherently lazy and digital feeds that laziness for me.

I'm the laziest person I know and digital means that I don't have to work as hard at the bits of photography that bore me - the technical bits. Auto ISO is the best thing ever for my photography - I can set the shutter speed and aperture at just what I want without having to compromise because of a fixed film speed. Add in exposure compensation and autofocus and all is good. This leaves me to get on with the fun bit, which for me is framing and timing my shots, which I think is what makes pictures and is what most viewers engage with.

After all, surely the reason most of us take photographs is to show other people things we have seen?

 

[sirch]

"...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."

And to emphasise the obvious: there is no reason why you can't appreciate the benefits of both approaches (or something in between) and alternate between them.

Absolutely and I actually suspect that everyone who aims to take a decent photo follows some kind of habitual process (ritual) if only things like checking the composition and exposure.

 

[sirch]

After all, surely the reason most of us take photographs is to show other people things we have seen?

The Talk Photography forum has 734k messages, Talk Equipment has 1.3M

I'm going to come out as bi ...

... photographic

I have distinctly two parts to my photographic psyche, one likes the equipment, processes and general magic of light, lenses and photosensitive elements, the other likes photographs, taking them, showing them and viewing them. I actually find it hard to bring both parts together, if I go out to take photos I generally go digital and forget the equipment/technical side. If I want to experience the magic I generally use film because I am simply more involved in every step of the process and TBH there are very few film shots of mine that I would print.

 

[droj]

After all, surely the reason most of us take photographs is to show other people things we have seen?

In the beginning - not necessarily! I experience image making as a private process that I opt to engage with, and it's in the making that the excitement lies. Once the image is made is a different matter, though, and one hopes that the image will resonate with some people in a communicative way ... but that's a separate circumstance.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The Talk Photography forum has 734k messages, Talk Equipment has 1.3M

I sometimes wonder if a lot of those posters ever take photographs. Especially those who change camera systems every month.

But the reality is probably that it's easier to talk about gear than pictures.

 

[myotis]

But the reality is probably that it's easier to talk about gear than pictures.

I agree with this, thinking about and writing posts on topics, such as those in this sub-forum, is more time consuming and mentally demanding than writing or thinking about equipment or technique.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I experience image making as a private process that I opt to engage with, and it's in the making that the excitement lies.

Absolutely. But, speaking for myself, I doubt I'd bother if I had no intention of showing(or at least a wish to show) the pictures to at least one other person.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

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.

That’s a really interesting perspective. I’m pretty agnostic when it comes to equipment, and the technicalities of process and suchlike bore me. But the creative process - that transition from idea through to finished image fascinates me. I just want the camera to get out of the way or at least make it as easy as possible to translate the scene in front of me into something that matches what’s in my head. I want to explore the scene, look up close, look at the background, understand better how the different parts of the scene interact (or did so in the past). I want to think what it all means, I want to think about how a finished image would look, how an image that could be made here could work with similar ones in a project, etc. Setting up the camera and clicking the shutter is often just the middle bit of my creative process and the starting point for the creation of something else with its output. But I guess that’s the same for many of us.

I do of course realise that to do so I have to have a certain level of competence in handling the equipment and technique. But I don’t derive any great joy from it, neither do I think it adds or distracts from the end result. But that’s just me!