Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Film "Feel Good" Rant

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Film "Feel Good" Rant

    A member of the F6 group on FB, Larry Snell, posted this, nothing against digital, but it describes some of the pleasures of using film, very much the way I feel it too sometimes:

    "Love my F6 and film. Just got back from a typical overnight jaunt to the hills and then checked Facebook, then commented on a nice and interesting post about a F6 vs. an 800. Then it really hit me (again). There I was in that beautiful place, no computer, no card reader, no backup drives, no power, no Internet, no laptop cases, no cords, no data loss worry, no rain worry, no menus, no white balance, no 12 button pushes, no screen checks, no nothing. My Velvia 50 is safely ensconced in its little cans. Got home and no downloading, no battery charging, no back upping the backup, no cord untangling, no formatting, no RAW processing that I don't shoot anyway, and again, no nothing except to wash my socks. I'll send the film off, get slides and an automatic backup CD. Done."
    Things I sell: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/epixx?language=en
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Just got back from a week and a half long walk to London. Then it really hit me. There I was on that beautiful walk. No car, no checking tires and oil before a long drive. No keys to remember. No speedometer and petrol gauge to be constantly checking. No 12 button presses to set up the climate control and music system just right for the journey. No petrol to buy. No mirrors to check and speed limit to keep to. No constant lane changes and watching for the police cause you're 10mph over the limit. No having to wait for the next pit stop to relieve yourself. Just my feet safely ensconced in a good pair of boots. Oh and my socks will definitely need washing. Done.

    Sorry I couldn't help it but his argument is as ludicrous. If all you are doing is sending it out then swap film for memory card, send it out for processing and get it back with the backup disk. You wouldn't need any of that stuff either. Digital is only more work if you make it so. For everyone else it's far less hassle and far more control than sending your velvia out and getting the disk back and only then starting to work.

    Went out on a shoot yesterday. Camera, one lens, one card, single battery in the bag. Shot for an hour, came home, about 2 hours later I had a final finished image posted up and sent for print. Did all the processing sitting on my butt while drinking orange juice. The backups were set up over a year ago and all happen automatically, the software and computer was set up years before. Honestly, yes you need some set up time but after that it's a really lazy way to approach photography compared to film and I love it. Oh and all the stuff was paid for a long long time ago. No more running costs.

    There are good reasons for film, it doesn't serve to dilute them with this nonsense IMO.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    A member of the F6 group on FB, Larry Snell, posted this, nothing against digital, but it describes some of the pleasures of using film, very much the way I feel it too sometimes:

    "Love my F6 and film. Just got back from a typical overnight jaunt to the hills and then checked Facebook, then commented on a nice and interesting post about a F6 vs. an 800. Then it really hit me (again). There I was in that beautiful place, no computer, no card reader, no backup drives, no power, no Internet, no laptop cases, no cords, no data loss worry, no rain worry, no menus, no white balance, no 12 button pushes, no screen checks, no nothing. My Velvia 50 is safely ensconced in its little cans. Got home and no downloading, no battery charging, no back upping the backup, no cord untangling, no formatting, no RAW processing that I don't shoot anyway, and again, no nothing except to wash my socks. I'll send the film off, get slides and an automatic backup CD. Done."
    This guy is joking - right?

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    "I get it" ... even though it is no longer for me, I really do get it.

    The relationship to making photos is different ... and I could see shooting with a film camera as a vacation from the swirling world of digital.

    I shot a wedding in Boston a while ago ... the client was a Leica M maven, and liked my candid M wedding work. While there he asked me shoot some with his M6 ... I had to laugh at myself when I kept glancing at the back of the M6 out of "digital habit".

    Oddly, I never lacked confidence in what I was shooting with a film M ... but with a digital camera have a compelling habit of chimping that I have to consciously resist. Part of that may be that neg film had more latitude, and the lab corrected for any less than perfect exposures ... in my experience, just handing over digital files to a lab has never been quite the same ... don't ask me why.

    I also laugh to myself when I see all the people looking down at their LCDs, necks at a 90 angle ... looks like a flock of Vultures with their heads coming out of their chests

    Film cameras tended to be all very similar ... while the ergonomics may have been slightly different ... it was all quite simple and mechanical for the most part. No accessing LCD menus for key controls, not bristling with buttons (some of which I still have no idea what they do unless I pull out the instructions when I accidentally press one sending the camera into some foreign mode or another), no array of flashing lights and fake shutter sounds.

    Yet, those days are long gone for me. Not that they weren't nice.

    A friend recently loaned me his Rolleiflex TLR because I had never owned one. Maybe it is time for a little "vacation"

    - Marc

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    I don't think his intention was to be taken literally. Most F6 users own digital cameras as well, mostly for the sake of convenience
    However, my gear was much simpler 15 years ago; no chargers, no cables, no laptop computer etc. I even travelled around the world without any of that stuff, just an OM-1, a couple of lenses and 10 rolls of Velvia.

  6. #6
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    I do get it.
    Film has a role for me. I often shoot models with film and find that they work differently when they know that you have to get it right in 12 attempts or less.
    The delay between shooting and viewing also has the benefit that the immediate connection between shoot and view is broken so that a more dispassionate critique often results.
    OTOH I usually shoot tethered.
    I know some that shoot models with wet plate collodion. They usually shoot something like three poses in a session.
    Actually that is sounding more attractive to me lately. I ought to see my doctor about it.
    -bob
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    The irony is that this was posted on facebook!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    It's fun to wax nostalgic about film's charm.
    It's fun to describe how effective digital is at getting work done.
    Etc, etc.

    I am shooting film and digital. Actually, lately, I'm shooting a lot of Polaroid: I've fallen in love with the SX-70, with the Spectra system.

    A lot means a couple of frames a day, at $3 apiece for Impossible Project film. I wish I was wealthier, as my ability to see and understand the film, the cameras' behavior and such is gated by how much film I can afford to push through them.

    There's a special sense of nostalgia to using these cameras. Once upon a time, you snapped a photo and two minutes later you looked at your finished photo. The recreated films are not as responsive as that, yet. The B&W film has a delicious four to five minute anticipation time. The latest color film has an almost agonizing 30-40 minute wait.

    But once you develop the skills with it ... It's you, the camera, and the subject. The finished product slides out of the camera, done and ready to be used. A physical artifact. Going further with it takes a massive amount more effort: scanning, rendering, finishing, etc. They are in some ways best just the way they come out of the camera.

    I'm thinking of starting an "eight a week" shooting project. That's one pack of film every seven days. Oh, I'll break the rule and probably shoot two packs. It might be interesting to see how this develops.

    (Selling just one of my less expensive, excess M-mount lenses would net 160 exposures to play with. At two exposures a day, that's a whole quarter of a year's shooting. hmm)

    G

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Hi Jorgen,

    My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

    Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

    Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

    The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Hmm hmm hmmm

    Podcast #823 - LensWork Daily

    ;-)


    onwards,
    G

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Hi Jorgen,

    My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

    Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

    Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

    The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
    Really? So when I take a photo with a specific processing in mind I'm just pandering to the masses when I apply said processing?

    I think that for any photographic artists the above is far from beginning to be true.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Hi Jorgen,

    My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

    Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

    Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

    The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
    I'd disagree that post production has much to do with anything in this context. 5 hours in the darkroom, masking, dodging and burning etc ... or in front of a computer ... what's the difference? You are still evaluating and making creative decisions after the fact.

    I DO agree that the actual shooting experience differs in the manner you describe. To simplify the notion for simple minds like mine: with film one tends to immediately think forward to the next shot, where with digital the compulsion is to look backwards at what you just shot.

    It absolutely drives me insane when I watch some of my second shooters at a wedding chimping the LCD while the REAL shot is happening right in front of them. The damned LCD is as addictive as crack ... most shooters can't help themselves.

    Oh course, the retort to that is "don't do it" ... turn it off! As if that would ever happen

    - Marc

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Hi Jorgen,

    My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

    Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

    Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

    The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
    The classic argument against curation. Every impulse is "correct" and "the best" expression because it is the purely personal. The ego expression. Except, it is not true. Artists realize that critical analysis of a work is vital for the creative process--the objective-self, not the the self can ever be objective. Distance is important and that just shows that the technology does not create the distance--as seen by the flurry of trite digital photographs that are posted because the group will not be critical--it is part of the creative process the artist uses.

    The other problem with the hypothesis is that is really is not reflecting the reality of the medium. There are just as many options for manipulation in a photochemical process as a digital one. Actually, the digital system can have less clutter as it can become far more automated where the photographer can have very little choice.

    Naturally trying to classify digital photography is socializing and film photography as individualizing is also showing little knowledge of the photographic technology. The Brownie and Polaroid as well as the sophisticated generation of SLRs and compact cameras showed that film is just as available and easy as a digital process--film is a great socializing medium. And a digital process can be as complex and "individual" as a film one.

  14. #14
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I DO agree that the actual shooting experience differs in the manner you describe. To simplify the notion for simple minds like mine: with film one tends to immediately think forward to the next shot, where with digital the compulsion is to look backwards at what you just shot.

    - Marc
    This is one of the reasons why I like my GH2, which tomorrow will be traded in for a GH3: Unless I'm using the LCD for framing (awkward angles etc.), I turn it in towards the body. I can of course chimp in the electronic viewfinder, but it's not nearly as distracting, since I'm ready to shoot that way, and I only do it occasionally to check exposure.

    I've always looked upon the rear LCD as a distraction, and wouldn't mind getting totally rid of it. If I have to chimp, I should rather pick up a book about photography basics.

    With film, of course, this is....

  15. #15
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    The classic argument against curation. Every impulse is "correct" and "the best" expression because it is the purely personal. The ego expression. Except, it is not true. Artists realize that critical analysis of a work is vital for the creative process--the objective-self, not the the self can ever be objective. Distance is important and that just shows that the technology does not create the distance--as seen by the flurry of trite digital photographs that are posted because the group will not be critical--it is part of the creative process the artist uses.

    The other problem with the hypothesis is that is really is not reflecting the reality of the medium. There are just as many options for manipulation in a photochemical process as a digital one. Actually, the digital system can have less clutter as it can become far more automated where the photographer can have very little choice.

    Naturally trying to classify digital photography is socializing and film photography as individualizing is also showing little knowledge of the photographic technology. The Brownie and Polaroid as well as the sophisticated generation of SLRs and compact cameras showed that film is just as available and easy as a digital process--film is a great socializing medium. And a digital process can be as complex and "individual" as a film one.
    But look at a group of people taking a photo of themselves with their camera phone, not one photo, but umpteen photos until they all have the "right" facial expression. In theory, that looks fine, but the little imperfections that often make for a memorable photo is gone, as is the spontaneity. I even see "street photographers" (a category of photography that I used to love, but now tend to look upon with something bordering to dismay, although there are some great exceptions) taking several photos of their victim until they get a version that suits their inner visualization of what a poor and hungry Cambodian child should look like.

    Maybe all this represent some kind of progress, but I find it utterly boring.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    But look at a group of people taking a photo of themselves with their camera phone, not one photo, but umpteen photos until they all have the "right" facial expression. In theory, that looks fine, but the little imperfections that often make for a memorable photo is gone, as is the spontaneity. I even see "street photographers" (a category of photography that I used to love, but now tend to look upon with something bordering to dismay, although there are some great exceptions) taking several photos of their victim until they get a version that suits their inner visualization of what a poor and hungry Cambodian child should look like.

    Maybe all this represent some kind of progress, but I find it utterly boring.
    And you are simply repeating the same complaints when 35mm cameras were invented, when the brownie came out, when Polaroids hit the scene, when we got motor drives. Mundane, boring photography has always been here. It did not suddenly appear with digital cameras.

    I am not sure what this has to do with spontaneity. Photography is hard work, if you want to do it well. Many "spontaneous" images are a result of hard work and many attempts. You are confusing the work by casual photographers and those that have mastered their medium. And the photographers that stand out are because they can distance themselves from their work to show the best. It is because they work hard and try. Spontaneity has nothing to do with it. And yes, if I have a portrait assignment, I am going to take all the pictures I need to get the right expression on a face--that is what I am paid for.

    As far as the slush pile, that too has been around for a very long time. Just take a look at the popular photography magazines from any age to see mediocre work. And there was lots of mediocre work. There still is lots of mediocre work.

    But what is your solution? Are you going to play photograph police and only allow images you deem worthy? I am not much for telling people what they can or cannot do. If they want to photograph their socks and put it on Facebook, more power to them. I don't have to look at it.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I DO agree that the actual shooting experience differs in the manner you describe. To simplify the notion for simple minds like mine: with film one tends to immediately think forward to the next shot, where with digital the compulsion is to look backwards at what you just shot.
    Maybe for you, but I shoot my digital cameras just as fluidly as my film cameras. I don't chimp when I am working, I photograph when I am working. There is plenty of time to look at pictures later.

    But this is not really a digital thing. It was done all the time in studios with Polaroid backs.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    But look at a group of people taking a photo of themselves with their camera phone, not one photo, but umpteen photos until they all have the "right" facial expression. In theory, that looks fine, but the little imperfections that often make for a memorable photo is gone, as is the spontaneity. I even see "street photographers" (a category of photography that I used to love, but now tend to look upon with something bordering to dismay, although there are some great exceptions) taking several photos of their victim until they get a version that suits their inner visualization of what a poor and hungry Cambodian child should look like.

    Maybe all this represent some kind of progress, but I find it utterly boring.
    I completely share your thoughts Jorgen and can especially relate to the last sentence. The photograph is the performance. If a photographer isn't able to work quickly and with diligence then that usually means he's not ready for "primetime." That doesn't necessarily mean that he's talentless or will never be ready for primetime. It just means that he isn't yet at ease with the decisive moment.

    Everyday, people do things automatically without putting much thought into it. We walk, pick up objects, eat meals, and recognize objects quickly and with total ease. However, this was not always the case. When we were first born, we weren't able to do many of these things and had to learn them during the process of growing up. Growing up required all kinds of trial, error and practice.

    Learning photography is similar to the process of growing up. The ability to quickly percieve and create a well-crafted photograph should be a simple and intuitive process. The fact that it eventually comes with ease doesn't mean that there weren't years (maybe decades) of preparation and learning that had to take place beforehand. In other words, the freedom that comes with a sense of ease doesn't imply that the situation wasn't paid for in advance.

    On a side note: I find it impossible to make a response to some of the posts directed at my original comments because they are arguing against positions that I don't even advocate! Godfrey's post is just plain insulting and there's no reason for him to be that way towards me.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I'd disagree that post production has much to do with anything in this context. 5 hours in the darkroom, masking, dodging and burning etc ... or in front of a computer ... what's the difference? You are still evaluating and making creative decisions after the fact.
    "Art is never finished, only abandoned." - DaVinci

    Hi Marc, I completely agree with you that there are still creative decisions and evaluations taking place in post-processing. My point is that those are at a distance from the decisive moment that is the essence of photography as a medium. DaVinci's overly broad quote about art actually applies well to digital imaging today because the popular mediums of his era (painting, sculpture etc) were often worked over long spaces of time in a manner very similar to post-processing. Projects created in mediums that are spacial and distant are more difficult to complete or "abandon" since there are more opportunities for self-criticism. It might also be worth mentioning that abandonment and freedom are closely related to each other.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Maybe for you, but I shoot my digital cameras just as fluidly as my film cameras. I don't chimp when I am working, I photograph when I am working. There is plenty of time to look at pictures later.

    But this is not really a digital thing. It was done all the time in studios with Polaroid backs.
    Yes, we already know you are a paragon of virtue and all photographers should be like you ... but alas, the majority are not ... they give in to their base curiosity and ... chimp.

    I chimp ... I have a T-shirt that says that

    It is when you chimp that matters.

    Really? Studio Film Photography using polaroids was/is a different methodical process with little to nothing left to chance ... days go into pre-production, designing the shots, dressing sets, and lighting ... then some polaroids pulled to confirm, tweak fine points, plus let clients see it come together if they are on set ... the back is then swapped out and the shoot progresses. No one pulled a 1:1 ratio of polaroids to every shot taken.

    - Marc

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    It is when you chimp that matters.

    Really? Studio Film Photography using polaroids was/is a different methodical process with little to nothing left to chance ... days go into pre-production, designing the shots, dressing sets, and lighting ... then some polaroids pulled to confirm, tweak fine points, plus let clients see it come together if they are on set ... the back is then swapped out and the shoot progresses. No one pulled a 1:1 ratio of polaroids to every shot taken.

    - Marc
    I can totally relate. My experience is that shooting polaroids on productions in the film days was very similar to chimping in the digital era. Some of the most enlightening moments I had when first starting photography was as an assistant. When I was new and still impressed by productions, models, castings etc, there was a time that I was on a shoot with game show host and his "beautiful assistant." She was gorgeous. I was 21 and couldn't take my eyes off of her on the set. But the photographers and ad folks weren't even looking at her. They were just staring at the damn the polaroids! I was like...WTF is wrong with these people?!!!

    Fast forward a couple of years and I was assisting on another shoot for a resort. There was a beautiful model (a ring-girl for the big Vegas boxing matches) floating on an intertube in a pool with the hotel tower in the background. The photographer and I were looking at the Hasselblad polaroids and the model looked too dry. She said, "go splash her a bit." So, I got the stylist and she took a spray bottle and started spraying down the model with glycerin or something (I can't remember). The model was immediatedly startled and seriously pissed off! We hadn't told her that she was going to get sprayed! The stylist and I had just treated her like an object as if she had no feelings or anything. That was the moment when I realized that I had become just like the photographers and ad people from the game show photo shoot. I was at such a distance from the moment that I had literally become an objective observer rather than a subjective participant.

    Marc, that was decades ago. But I bet that you can easily relate considering all of your advertising experience. Anyhow, the reason for bringing it up is just to show that distance is something that photographers really have to struggle with and avoid especially on large productions.
    Last edited by Mike M; 9th October 2013 at 16:17.

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Yes, we already know you are a paragon of virtue and all photographers should be like you ... but alas, the majority are not ... they give in to their base curiosity and ... chimp.

    I chimp ... I have a T-shirt that says that

    It is when you chimp that matters.

    Really? Studio Film Photography using polaroids was/is a different methodical process with little to nothing left to chance ... days go into pre-production, designing the shots, dressing sets, and lighting ... then some polaroids pulled to confirm, tweak fine points, plus let clients see it come together if they are on set ... the back is then swapped out and the shoot progresses. No one pulled a 1:1 ratio of polaroids to every shot taken.

    - Marc
    Exactly where did I say photographers should be like me? I would really like to know, because that is not the point I am trying to make.

    What I don't believe is holding up some idea of photography as right or true and then bashing photographers that don't fit that model. My argument is that folks are basically creating straw man fallacies to advance a narrow set of ideas that don't reflect reality as well as distorting reality to fit their model.

    It is funny, before the world of Internet forums, the photographers and creative people I worked with were really comfortable that there were different ways of working and that everyone was on different points in their artistic development. This type of open environment seems to be a thing of the past. The world just seems to divide itself into small groups with entrenched positions.

    Did you ever wonder why the second photographers in your wedding shoot had so little confidence? Do you even try to help them become better? Or are you just expecting them to be perfect and they can sink or swim?

    You are right that photographer never had a 1:1 ratio of Polariods to shots. Mostly they used lots of 'roids. Then they would bracket the shot with film.

    I know you will simply agree to disagree. It is a pity really. I have lots of young photographer coming through the center I work in that are looking for more than criticism. They are looking for ideas and skills. And like every photographer before them, they are looking to find photography on their own terms.

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    To chimp or not to chimp? That is the question!

    My experience is that there are basically two main types of chimping. The first is based on "form" (technique) and the second is based on "content" (subject matter.) I don't believe that there is any way to avoid chimping when it comes to form especially for people that are new to photography and learning the craft. Eventually over time, if they've done their homework then they won't need to do it anymore or at least do it in such trivial amounts that it doesn't effect the vibe of their workflow or get in the way of their original idea. On the other hand, when people are chimping in order to check the content or subject matter of the photograph then that usually means they haven't quite figured out what they're shooting in the first place. It's an indication that the idea behind the photo is half-baked to begin with and decisions are being made after-the-fact. This is a real problem on large productions because group efforts can often involve so many changes to the original idea that real monstrosities can emerge if everyone isn't careful.

    That's just one man's opinion. Hopefully it won't offend anybody too much.

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Exactly where did I say photographers should be like me? I would really like to know, because that is not the point I am trying to make.

    What I don't believe is holding up some idea of photography as right or true and then bashing photographers that don't fit that model. My argument is that folks are basically creating straw man fallacies to advance a narrow set of ideas that don't reflect reality as well as distorting reality to fit their model.

    It is funny, before the world of Internet forums, the photographers and creative people I worked with were really comfortable that there were different ways of working and that everyone was on different points in their artistic development. This type of open environment seems to be a thing of the past. The world just seems to divide itself into small groups with entrenched positions.

    Did you ever wonder why the second photographers in your wedding shoot had so little confidence? Do you even try to help them become better? Or are you just expecting them to be perfect and they can sink or swim?

    You are right that photographer never had a 1:1 ratio of Polariods to shots. Mostly they used lots of 'roids. Then they would bracket the shot with film.

    I know you will simply agree to disagree. It is a pity really. I have lots of young photographer coming through the center I work in that are looking for more than criticism. They are looking for ideas and skills. And like every photographer before them, they are looking to find photography on their own terms.
    Okay I'll play.


    "Maybe for you, but I shoot my digital cameras just as fluidly as my film cameras. I don't chimp when I am working, I photograph when I am working. There is plenty of time to look at pictures later."


    "Maybe for you" ... Thinly veiled superiority, I'm better than you are. In reality, you don't have a clue how I work, you just assume you do and extrapolate from that.

    You also take something out of context and then proceed to an insulting insinuation that I just criticize or expect photographers working with me to sink or swim ... and do not address ways to help them improve their perceptual skills and methods of exploring different ways to work ... while informing me of your way of working with young photographers looking for more than criticism.

    In reality, I am known amongst photographers that work with me for that very reason, and it is why they want to come with me on jobs in the first place. The ongoing success of my former second shooters is all the testimony I need to continue on the same way. Hell, I just spent days helping a wedding photographer prepare to move into commercial life-style work.

    What I DO NOT do is address such things in front of clients or subjects even if the photographer's inattention drive me batty sometimes. ... I always share some thoughts for them to consider after the shoot when we look at the images together, where it is the appropriate time and place. Then it is up to them to deal with it on their own terms ... or not.

    You also dismissively assume their inattention is due to "lack of confidence" ... when it is simply inattention at the wrong time. I don't eschew chimping, it can signal if something is technically going wrong, or something isn't set right, or what ever ... just chimp the LCD after the scenario set you are shooting is done, not while it is happening. It has nothing to do with confidence, mostly it is just premature enthusiasm. BTW, my second shooters are not young nor inexperienced. I hire fresh and inexperienced young photographers to be assistants, not shoot someone's wedding/portrait/commercial job when the client has paid for an experienced pro.

    Personally, I find your comments the most solidified and entrenched of anyone on this forum ... most people are here to have some fun and exchange a bit of banter, perhaps escape from the serious parts of their lives, and maybe even let off some steam ... but you make into some sort of sad soapbox to lecture everyone on the error of their ways. Obviously, you can tout any philosophy you want here ... just stop assuming it's better, and continually assuming things about other people. You don't know me at all. Actually, I find your POV valid and food for thought, but when wrapped in thinly veiled insults it is lessened.

    BTW, to lament about the creative interaction before the world of internet forms, on an internet forum, is pretty ironic I think.

    I may learn something here, or other web places I visit, and hopefully share some knowledge in return ... but for really serious creative interaction I prefer face to face and always have. I have a nice network of creative people from all sorts of disciplines, all at different stages of their trek. Writers, designers, photographers, advertising people, editors, illustrators, painters, film makers, and so on ... we exchange ideas and opinions with mutual respect. What we do not do is assume the worse of people if we happen to disagree or do not understand fully ... like this:

    "Marc, when those second shooters drive you nutty, how do you handle it?"

    Well, (insert friend's name), I discuss it with them later and sometimes show them shots I took after the actual event image we were expected to get ... demonstrating that paying attention, keeping tuned into their surroundings, can pay off with images more delightful that the original.

    Other than that I agree to disagree.

    - Marc

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Marc is more eloquent than myself but I wanted to share my opinion perhaps more succinctly. Who gives a *bleep* whether I chimp or use this, that or the other. It's the end result and the artistic determination behind it that counts. Everything else is just forum elitist bull.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Who gives a *bleep* whether I chimp or use this, that or the other.
    Yeah, who cares? I sure don't care what you do...and I haven't read any posts from anyone else that cares about what you do either.

    So, do whatever you want. Nobody cares. Really. Nobody cares.

  27. #27
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Marc is more eloquent than myself but I wanted to share my opinion perhaps more succinctly. Who gives a *bleep* whether I chimp or use this, that or the other. It's the end result and the artistic determination behind it that counts. Everything else is just forum elitist bull.

    +1

    I think I will go chimp and take 5,000 64 gig (that's about 10 a minute on a union scale day) digital shots today and tomorrow go take my old Nikon F and shoot 10 rolls of Acros and tri-X.

    Then I will not chimp again for a week - go figure. Also I might wear a t-shirt or a button down shirt.

    I thinking jeans - any opinions?

    Hey guys lets get into substance not superficial style. Who are we trying to sell and satisfy?

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Yeah, who cares? I sure don't care what you do...and I haven't read any posts from anyone else that cares about what you do either.

    So, do whatever you want. Nobody cares. Really. Nobody cares.
    Actually, I care what Ben does. He's someone that I've learn many things from because of his dedicated, thoughtful and even lyrical approach to photography, and his forthright but compassionate methods of teaching ... (without insulting individuals with whom he disagrees BTW).

    So there is at least one post from someone that cares what someone else does.

    In fact, I find a number of people who have something of substance to share that is relevant ... from Guy's enthusiastic "reports from the front", to the OP's waxing nostalgic on this thread.

    But hey, maybe it is just the nature of the web where we can't see each other's face and read body language ... or perhaps even a language issue? Which is why I prefer face-to-face encounters when digging deep into dicey philosophical entanglements ... even dodging them on the web by agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.

    The very nature of the web is anonymity and superficialness ... some can handle it, some can't. Few people can do both all of the time.

    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    +1

    I think I will go chimp and take 5,000 64 gig (that's about 10 a minute on a union scale day) digital shots today and tomorrow go take my old Nikon F and shoot 10 rolls of Acros and tri-X.

    Then I will not chimp again for a week - go figure. Also I might wear a t-shirt or a button down shirt.

    I thinking jeans - any opinions?

    Hey guys lets get into substance not superficial style. Who are we trying to sell and satisfy?
    What brand of Jeans?



    - Marc

  30. #30
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    What brand of Jeans?



    - Marc
    Lol

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    I've not worn jeans in 11 years. Goes with the 40" waistline
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  32. #32
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    I've not worn jeans in 11 years. Goes with the 40" waistline
    Lol but I have an advantage - I am hiding in Shanghai ;-)

  33. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Actually, I care what Ben does.

    - Marc
    Do you really care if he chimps or not?

    All of your thoughts about face-to-face meetings and stuff is great. But that is a response to something other than the content of my post.

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    I've long known an individual who occasionally would shoot film during the film-only era, but when the original Nikon D1 DSLR hit the streets (and virtually every Pro model after that), he'd take his camera out each day, and fire random multi shot bursts all day long.....out moving car widows, train windows, walking down streets, at well known performing art centers, pro sports arenas, heck if he could spin around and photograph everyone in a darkened theater he would.

    Each day he's come back with hundreds if not thousands of pictures (especially when memory cards became plentiful and cheap). He had the time to buy the latest and greatest lenses, especially those that would be considered for specific limited/creative uses like all sorts of fisheye lenses, lens babies, you name it and often use them in unorthodox ways. If it moved, or he was moving, it was photographed. He chimped all the time, both for his own pleasure and to share with those around him after firing his bursts. Rarely was there interest in another's critique of his work. Believe it or not, he even had time to even download and quickly look through all his daily images at the end of each day.

    Slowly but surely his images got accepted in quite well known regional publications, sometimes for pay, sometimes not. This led to all sorts of gigs, some of which began to surprise well seasoned photographers who could only shake their head in amazement. Reminds me of that world of spray can street art (of which I know little of)....to simply thrown it all out there and see what sticks.

    My point in relaying all this.... if he did this in environments where he wasn't intruding on peoples time or space, no one really cared and he got the more than occasional shot that earned a cover photo, 2 page spread or some degree of notoriety. Yet, when it was done in a well controlled event such as a wedding, performing art venue or private or public event, not only was his intrusive methods and machine gun firing style often a nuisance, it could sometimes become a spectacle for off handed comments and simply disdain...more often from any pro photographer who happened to be nearby than from the general public at large who were the targets of his photographic blasts.

    So I am simply asking this as a rhetorical question....who were the ones who really cared and were bothered whether he chimped incessantly, showed anyone and everyone his rear LCD images most of the time and thus blasted his way into a personal photographic nirvana?

    Personally I often think it was sometimes from those who were bothered by the whole process of creating images in a way far removed from what they considered conventional or normal and certainly not done in a accomplished manner using well accepted norms of composing an image....namely other photographers. It was just an observation I had over many years experiencing his brand of image capture.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 11th October 2013 at 05:27.

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    I've long known an individual who occasionally would shoot film during the film-only era, but when the original Nikon D1 DSLR hit the streets (and virtually every Pro model after that), he'd take his camera out each day, and fire random multi shot bursts all day long.....out moving car widows, train windows, walking down streets, at well known performing art centers, pro sports arenas, heck if he could spin around and photograph everyone in a darkened theater he would.

    Each day he's come back with hundreds if not thousands of pictures (especially when memory cards became plentiful and cheap). He had the time to buy the latest and greatest lenses, especially those that would be considered for specific limited/creative uses like all sorts of fisheye lenses, lens babies, you name it and often use them in unorthodox ways. If it moved, or he was moving, it was photographed. He chimped all the time, both for his own pleasure and to share with those around him after firing his bursts. Rarely was there interest in another's critique of his work. Believe it or not, he even had time to even download and quickly look through all his daily images at the end of each day.

    Slowly but surely his images got accepted in quite well known regional publications, sometimes for pay, sometimes not. This led to all sorts of gigs, some of which began to surprise well seasoned photographers who could only shake their head in amazement. Reminds me of that world of spray can street art (of which I know little of)....to simply thrown it all out there and see what sticks.

    My point in relaying all this.... if he did this in environments where he wasn't intruding on peoples time or space, no one really cared and he got the more than occasional shot that earned a cover photo, 2 page spread or some degree of notoriety. Yet, when it was done in a well controlled event such as a wedding, performing art venue or private or public event, not only was his intrusive methods and machine gun firing style often a nuisance, it could sometime become a spectacle for off handed comments and simply disdain...more often from any pro photographer who happened to be nearby than from the general public at large who were the targets of his photographic blasts.

    So I am simply asking this as a rhetorical question....who were the ones who really cared and were bothered whether he chimped incessantly, showed anyone and everyone his rear LCD images most of the time and thus blasted his was into a personal photographic nirvana?

    Personally I often think it was sometimes from those who were bothered by the whole process of creating images in a way far removed from what they considered conventional or normal and certainly not done in a accomplished manner using well accepted norms of composing an image....namely other photographers. It was just an observation I had over many years experiencing his brand of image capture.

    Dave (D&A)
    A Winogrand wannabe perhaps? Sounds like this guy needs a movie camera ... maybe he's a closet motion picture DP For sure he's a great editor.


    I'll go you one better ... the most prolific, long lasting commercial lifestyle shooter in our area was worse than an amateur behind the camera ... he hired other people to take the photographs, and every Art Director winced when he did the shooting himself because it was more likely than not that the shots would be out of focus. He just had the magic touch of orchestrating the whole thing superbly and directing talent for convincing shots. Question is, if you don't touch the camera, are you a photographer? ... Frankly, no one cared, they got the shots they wanted because of him.


    - Marc

  36. #36
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Frankly, no one cared, they got the shots they wanted because of him.


    - Marc
    Exactly my point Marc! With the photographer I described above, no one but possibly other Pro photographers really cared how he achieved his images. He knew how to smooze, share his images immediately with those he just shot and often time out of shear luck came up with a photograph that was clearly different than anyone elses. Looking through the camera's viewfinder when shooting was completely optional for him.

    As you said, no one cared becuase they got the shots they wanted because of him. I think he tried shooting video for all of 15 minutes, but that was boring and all too easy...LOL!

    Dave (D&A)

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post

    So I am simply asking this as a rhetorical question....who were the ones who really cared and were bothered whether he chimped incessantly, showed anyone and everyone his rear LCD images most of the time and thus blasted his way into a personal photographic nirvana?

    Dave (D&A)
    Dave, your story is a really good example of a certain kind of shooter that most of us should already be familiar with or may actually be ourselves! As a content producer, I learned that shooting double the images meant making double the money. So, the choice to "spray and pray" was not a difficult one to to make for me when it came to the bottom line of earning a profit.

    My guess is that if any photographers are bothered by those that chimp then it is a matter of professional jealousy. Chimping is just forum-speak for what advertising shooters used to call "hacking." A hack is a guy that has no idea what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes along. In business, folks like that usually have lots of personal charisma and are really good at smoozing and bluffing etc. Hacks can be incredibly threatening to competing photography business owners because they simultaneously lower standards (making the barrier for entry more accessible) while driving down prices. Unfortunately, in a lot of markets the only way to really fight a hack is to be a bigger hack. In other words, if you can't beat 'em...join 'em.

    Hacks may be a problem for professional photographers but they are no threat at all to artist photographers. Any artist that deserves the name must be able to personally express himself through a given medium. The spray-and-pray shooters and chimpers don't have control over the medium of photography yet or are just cynically using it for monetary profit, so they can't possibly use it as a tool for self-expression.

    Ultimately, chimping or anything else that puts distance between a photographer and the decisive moment is a form of "self-harm." It's a sign that a photographer is alienated from himself and isn't living up to or achieving his personal potential in the medium. All of my previous posts in this thread were an attempt to help photographers better understand (through my experience) the importance of eliminating distance so that their own work could be improved. But, that doesn't mean that I give a damn whether they listen to me or not. As far as I'm concerned, they can chimp all they want!

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Chimping is just forum-speak for what advertising shooters used to call "hacking." A hack is a guy that has no idea what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes along.
    I find your comments more and more insulting. Oh and clueless.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Dave, your story is a really good example of a certain kind of shooter that most of us should already be familiar with or may actually be ourselves! As a content producer, I learned that shooting double the images meant making double the money. So, the choice to "spray and pray" was not a difficult one to to make for me when it came to the bottom line of earning a profit.

    My guess is that if any photographers are bothered by those that chimp then it is a matter of professional jealousy. Chimping is just forum-speak for what advertising shooters used to call "hacking." A hack is a guy that has no idea what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes along. In business, folks like that usually have lots of personal charisma and are really good at smoozing and bluffing etc. Hacks can be incredibly threatening to competing photography business owners because they simultaneously lower standards (making the barrier for entry more accessible) while driving down prices. Unfortunately, in a lot of markets the only way to really fight a hack is to be a bigger hack. In other words, if you can't beat 'em...join 'em.

    Hacks may be a problem for professional photographers but they are no threat at all to artist photographers. Any artist that deserves the name must be able to personally express himself through a given medium. The spray-and-pray shooters and chimpers don't have control over the medium of photography yet or are just cynically using it for monetary profit, so they can't possibly use it as a tool for self-expression.

    Ultimately, chimping or anything else that puts distance between a photographer and the decisive moment is a form of "self-harm." It's a sign that a photographer is alienated from himself and isn't living up to or achieving his personal potential in the medium. All of my previous posts in this thread were an attempt to help photographers better understand (through my experience) the importance of eliminating distance so that their own work could be improved. But, that doesn't mean that I give a damn whether they listen to me or not. As far as I'm concerned, they can chimp all they want!
    FYI:

    Actually, that isn't quite the meaning of "Hack". A Hack (noun) is someone that does know what they are doing, but exploits their creative ability by shoveling out work they hope will cater to the tastes of the masses and provide greater financial reward ... as in: Thomas Kinkade,"painter of light" was a successful Hack.

    It can also mean someone who works doing dull routine tasks in the literary world for pay ... and was derived from the English equestrian term for horses that did drudgery duty and repetitious tasks ... a shortened slang version of Hackney ... as in Hackney Carriage ... all the way to "Hack" currently meaning a Taxi or cab driver.

    It has nothing to do with whether one looks at the LCD on a digital camera or not. BTW, there are oodles of non-professional artistic oriented photographers that are Hacks.

    God, language is interesting

    - Marc
    Last edited by fotografz; 12th October 2013 at 14:38.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Tough to check a histogram without chimping.
    If film cameras had that ability I would have surely used it, but since it is lacking I use a spotmeter or a partially educated guess.
    Please remember folks that we expect folks to be courteous.
    Violators will be banned at our whim for a cooling-off period or permanently.
    -bob
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #41
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Tough to check a histogram without chimping.
    If film cameras had that ability I would have surely used it, but since it is lacking I use a spotmeter or a partially educated guess.
    Please remember folks that we expect folks to be courteous.
    Violators will be banned at our whim for a cooling-off period or permanently.
    -bob
    You know I don't know where to begin, so I won't (a good idea sometimes).

    I want to make two points, I sincerely enjoy the back and forth of the the members here. Reading getDPI has become part of my daily routine. Everybody comes here I guess for different reasons, I generally like the people and the of course some attitudes I relate to more than others.

    To stay within the confirms of this thread - I find the work of Ben - truly inspirational, I really like the expressions and sensation when looking at the shots, truly fine art. Marc - I don't think realizes how much I appreciate his framing and suggestions that he captures (plus I grew up close to where he lives) . Will, - great shots and cuts to the heart of the matter when things go astray, As they say in China, Directly and frankly ;-) - With Jorgen - Is great to hear the trial and tribulations - good natured battering. Godfrey and Dave - always interested in what you have to say. Bob great to have an adult on board - who is fine fine photographer. So we have two facets, the on-line personalities and their work, I am thankful for all.

    Second, - I got a P45+ back from CI converted to full spectrum by Phase. So as to be polite and not offend the sensors I will use the " * " . My god I wish I could g***d*** chimp. Since the camera focus off the mirror box, and not the sensor, - the wave length screws up the AF. Also if only like were so simple, as to just use the red dot on the lens -- hahah. So I am concentering on two lenses with the DF+ - 45 and 150 and will make reference points and also see if any changes when using different cut off filters will affect the focus ie. 680nm vs 850mn etc. My god I wish I could g**d*** chimp

    I gotta say everytime I see or hear the word chimp - I think Chimp(anzee) -

    Off I am

    Phil

  42. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    A Hack (noun) is someone that does know what they are doing
    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    work they hope will cater to the tastes of the masses and provide greater financial reward
    The last quote is a pretty good description of work that art directors create for corporate advertising.

    The funny thing about the word "hack" is that it isn't very popular with hacks themselves. For this reason, they often need to have it explained to them by others or by consulting dictionary entries etc. Hacks rarely question the fact that popular taste is the source of their financial success. Usually they attribute popularity to the false belief that they possess some kind of amazing artistic talent as individuals. If they have a talent for anything then it's an aptitude for meeting the demands of popular taste. Dwight MacDonald wrote that hacks have a genuine "built-in vulgar touch" that allows them to connect to their mainstream audiences. My experience is that it's pretty rare for a photographer to admit to being a hack because it usually takes some kind of actual artistic ability just to be able to identify one. Also, photographers that intentionally create hack work usually find it more prudent to keep cynically silent in order to avoid insulting the audience that is the source of their profit. In other words, it's very unlikely for a photographer either to know or admit to being a hack.

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    The last quote is a pretty good description of work that art directors create for corporate advertising.

    The funny thing about the word "hack" is that it isn't very popular with hacks themselves. For this reason, they often need to have it explained to them by others or by consulting dictionary entries etc. Hacks rarely question the fact that popular taste is the source of their financial success. Usually they attribute popularity to the false belief that they possess some kind of amazing artistic talent as individuals. If they have a talent for anything then it's an aptitude for meeting the demands of popular taste. Dwight MacDonald wrote that hacks have a genuine "built-in vulgar touch" that allows them to connect to their mainstream audiences. My experience is that it's pretty rare for a photographer to admit to being a hack because it usually takes some kind of actual artistic ability just to be able to identify one. Also, photographers that intentionally create hack work usually find it more prudent to keep cynically silent in order to avoid insulting the audience that is the source of their profit. In other words, it's very unlikely for a photographer either to know or admit to being a hack.


    I'm an Art Director, so let's diss Art Directors to win some competitive point ... how very flat-footed of you

    However, in a thinly veiled insulting sense, part of what you write is pretty much true.

    Like how those Vogue Art Directors whipped Penn and Avedon into shape to sell magazines for a giant publishing corporation. Or how the visual/verbal/creative ethos of the Apple corporation has helped make it the most valuable Brand on the planet.

    Of course, the part you conveniently overlook is that there is a difference between selling imagery directly to the public, and creating imagery that influences them. It also leaves out the part where there are sophisticated arbitrators of taste at the receiving end of imagery, commercial or not, that often lead the less involved general public tastes.

    What I find interesting about contentious discussions like this is that it is rarely black & white, and there is almost always some kernel of truth lurking there from all participating parties that can be thought provoking and useful. To bad that it has to be wrapped in personal insults which are usually the sign of a weakly presented argument in need of bolstering emotional bluster.

    For example, with the advent of popular web based photographic sites, it could be said that a sub-section of Hackneyed work has risen to new heights: pandering to other members of the "photo tribe". I never really thought about it in that way until this discussion.

    BTW, good to see that you now are using the term "Hack" correctly. Definitions exist because language is pretty precise, and twisted misuses for the sake of some argument are pretty obvious.

    Got to prep for a shoot this morning ... for some money to pay my bills ... like everyone else, unless they were born with a silver spoon on their mouth.

    Damned society ... wish they'd subsidize all artists, so we didn't have to hack out a living to feed and house our families

    - Marc

  44. #44
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Back to shooting film please.

  45. #45
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    What's Film Bob?

    Just kidding.


    About a month ago we jettisoned our freezer in the garage and I have at least $1,000 worth of MF film just sitting there now.

    What a waste. I didn't even know who to give it to. A lot of it is probably still good since I froze it immediately after buying it ...
    but I couldn't guarantee it.

    Anyone wants it, just pay for the shipping ...

    - Marc

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    You got any Type 55?
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  47. #47
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Tough to check a histogram without chimping.
    If film cameras had that ability I would have surely used it, but since it is lacking I use a spotmeter or a partially educated guess.
    Please remember folks that we expect folks to be courteous.
    Violators will be banned at our whim for a cooling-off period or permanently.
    -bob
    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    What's Film Bob?

    Just kidding.


    About a month ago we jettisoned our freezer in the garage and I have at least $1,000 worth of MF film just sitting there now.

    What a waste. I didn't even know who to give it to. A lot of it is probably still good since I froze it immediately after buying it ...
    but I couldn't guarantee it.

    Anyone wants it, just pay for the shipping ...

    - Marc
    Hi Marc

    I'll be back in Miami in November, I would like to get some. I'll pay shipping

  48. #48
    Member GregMO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film "Feel Good" Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post



    Got to prep for a shoot this morning ... for some money to pay my bills ... like everyone else, unless they were born with a silver spoon on their mouth.

    Damned society ... wish they'd subsidize all artists, so we didn't have to hack out a living to feed and house our families

    - Marc

    Exactly. That's why I find the term "hack" to be so amusing. In order to survive & "pay the bills," we have to reach some degree of commercial success.

    To each their own, if someone is able to do that shooting weddings or portraits and someone else is able to do it shooting sports and another is shooting scenic/ landscapes then what difference does it make. I think the key issue is, is the photographer truly shooting the type of work they want to be doing? If the answer is yes..good for them. If not, how can they get to that point for themselves.
    The reason we all do this is to try and be success/ happy and not work some "job" we can't stand like most people out there.
    Last edited by GregMO; 13th October 2013 at 16:03.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •