Author Topic: In praise of Filmwasters  (Read 5219 times)

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,999
In praise of Filmwasters
« on: April 28, 2018, 09:28:19 PM »
I've just been to an exhibition by a local camera club and must say something... so bear with me.
It was an exhibition of the best work they've made all year.
They were asking visitors to choose the best photos in both the B&W and color categories.
It took me about 30 minutes to select my choice. It sadly wasn't because they were all great. And it wasn't because I was having a slow day. It simply was because they were HORRIBLE!

I have a hard time believing that these were the best of the best. Every single one looked like a postcard from a travel brochure. Some were even badly printed.

So, I came to the conclusion that:
You guys are great!
Every weekend set is infinitely better than their year's worth of images.

I think you all deserve a pat on the back... seriously.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

MiguelCampano

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2018, 02:14:04 AM »
I'm glad you wrote this. I had a similar experience yesterday at a local gallery. I went in with my camera after trying a new pizza place, and the lady who owns it started talking to me and made me take a look at a current exhibition. Badly photoshopped, badly printed stuff. The worst type of pictures I can imagine: random girl sitting on the grass, trying too hard to pose. The "winner" of it, was a sunset picture that was basically just the sunlight and the rest completely underexposed. The person won $500 cash.

Makes me wonder if I should...
Instagram: @_shaken.not.stirred

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2018, 05:05:40 AM »
There is a LOT of bad photography in the world. The standard here is considerably higher than in the vast majority of venues, online or off.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,999
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2018, 09:54:51 PM »
I definitely can see that!
It's funny in a sense. We get so used to seeing a high level of quality that we tend to forget how bad the "average" can be...
Somehow, seeing such badness tends to put things back into perspective and feels pretty good.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

MiguelCampano

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2018, 11:12:40 PM »
There is a LOT of bad photography in the world. The standard here is considerably higher than in the vast majority of venues, online or off.

It's like when I go to Wal-mart and feel like I'm on top of the gene pool  ;D
Instagram: @_shaken.not.stirred

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2018, 01:38:38 AM »
I don't normally cross-post from my blog, but I wrote this at least partially tongue-in-cheek manifesto recently in no small part in reaction to the tide of mediocrity and worse that I was seeing in various photography outlets. I figure it might be a starting point for further discussion (criticize away - I'm happy to see alternate viewpoints) here.

A spectre is haunting the world – the spectre of bad photography. The world is cursed with an ever-increasing tide of photos that should never have been seen, and if nothing is done, we will be overwhelmed, drowned in mediocrity or worse. If the medium is to be preserved, it must be reborn in the eyes of its practitioners. Here, therefore, I present a path to salvation, a means by which photography may once again be shown without endangering the public welfare. In order to properly emphasize the power and force contained in this document, it goes to 11.

1. Never show boring work. Most photographs are boring, but this doesn’t mean you have to inflict them on unsuspecting viewers. Choose wisely what you show in public – the viewer will think better of your work if it is carefully selected and interesting. Art should never measured by mass or volume. Be your own harshest critic.

2. A photograph is a photograph. Magritte’s The Treachery of Images is correct. “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” – it is not a pipe, but an image of a pipe. Your photograph is not the thing being photographed, nor should you intend it to be. You are creating a photograph, a thing in and of itself – do not seek to reproduce what you see, but to produce something that will be seen for its own sake.

3. Perception is reality. What a viewer sees when they look at a photograph is their reality, which may be completely detached from the reality you saw when you made the photo. The reality you saw is irrelevant. What matters is the photograph and how it is seen – this is the reality the photographer creates.

4. Do not photograph in a vacuum. Photography has been practiced for over a century and a half, yet many photographers never look critically at anything but their own work, if even that. If you don’t know what has been done already, how can you possibly meaningfully evaluate your own photographs? A photographer must be both a creator and consumer of photography; creation without reference is self-delusion.

5. Whenever there is doubt, there is no doubt. If there is any question at all as to whether a photograph you have made is good or not, it isn’t. Good work announces itself when it enters the room; mediocre work sneaks in through the kitchen.

6. The camera doesn’t matter. No one but you cares what camera you used to produce a photo, just as no one cares what sort of brush Da Vinci used or what sort of chisel Michelangelo used. The end result is what matters. The artist selects their own tools for their own purposes; the viewer could not care less, so do not bore them with technical information that can only detract from the attention given to your work.

7. Command the machine. In order that art be the product of the artist, the photographer must impose his will upon the camera. Painters compose their own palettes, demanding the pigments provide them the vision they seek. The photographer must make the same demands upon their camera, lens, and film. In the digital realm, it is all the more important, lest your work be merely the banal product of algorithms designed by corporations for maximum public acceptance.

8. Photographs have no meaning. You may feel a certain way about a photograph, but you cannot and should not attempt to impose this feeling on the viewer. If a photograph evokes a consistent emotional response from its viewers, it is because they are reacting to what they see, not what you told them they are looking at and what it means. If a viewer has no reason to engage with a photograph, they won’t; only through this engagement will a photograph have meaning to them as an individual.

9. Conformity is the enemy. In a world of ephemeral media trends, far too many succumb to the instinct to join the herd. The result of this failure is that photographs look increasingly alike. Only by ignoring peer pressure and discarding social conformity can a photographer transcend convergence with every other photographer. A photographer’s rules must be their own, and as such they are inviolable.

10. Imperfection is the path to perfection. A technically perfect photograph is certain to be mind-numbingly dull, as it is clear the photographer was first focused on the technical, rather than the artistic. The viewer of photography is not looking for technical perfection; they are looking for work that creates emotion. Imperfection can evoke far greater and more complex emotions than perfection ever will.

11. Never accept success. The moment a photographer decides they are fully competent in their work is the moment they die. The very thought that there is an end point to the development of a photographer’s work is the most destructive idea imaginable. Any photographer who believes they have reached the pinnacle of their own abilities will produce nothing but bad work after that moment.

Rise against the oppression of bad photography! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

cs1

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2018, 07:26:29 AM »
Great manifest! I don't have any objections.

I recently discovered that it's of utmost importance that I ask myself the question "is this shot really worth being taken?". I hate the moments when I look at shots on a freshly developed role and see a shot which makes me think "I knew this wasn't going to work - and it didn't". I once (!) had the very satisfying moment when I really carefully shot a 120 roll where I had the good feeling before every single shot that it was worth taking. And it turned out that I liked every shot. That really doesn't happen very often. I also believe that shooting film makes you a better photographer. It's not so much because of the medium but because of the fact that snapping away digitally leads to a "this shot doesn't cost me anything so I might just as well take it" attitude. If you transfer the thoughtful process of taking film photos to digital it will in my eyes make you a better photographer.

zapsnaps

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Get Zapped!
    • http://www.NowSeeThis.co.uk
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2018, 09:57:04 AM »
I totally empathise with Francois.
When I started out I joined the local camera club. All it did was kill my creativity - something which was (still is?) in very short supply in those days. I wanted to learn and experience more. All the club wanted me to do was to take post-card pictures and enter them into competitions. I rebelled (obviously) and tried to create my own style. When I entered competitions, I was given 13-15 out of 20 for 'trying and participating'. Most people scored 16-19 and one person would score 20/20. They used slide film (in was late 90s/2000) and an the latest auto everything from Canon and Nikon. It was in an affluent area, so the members took exotic long haul holidays, often to a destination aligned to the competition subjects. They simply waited for a sunset, put it on auto bracketing and fired off an entire roll of Velvia 50 and picked the best shot out of 36. The more adventurous may have used a tobacco or sunset filter. Mount the slide and bung it in a competition. Some entered the same picture in many different categories: slide/print/sunset/building/sea/landscape/tree etc. Yawn.

I'm not saying my stuff was better - it was simply different. And ignored. So I left and have never regretted it. I learn more and get more inspiration on here from looking at the creativity and results from people with a £10-100 camera, than those at the camera club with the latest 'best' auto everything offering from either of the two main manufacturers. There is some very special stuff produced by the members on here. Mrs Zapsnaps comments favourably when she sees me looking at the weekend thread. And that's telling - the FW output appeals to gear freaks, picture makers and the visually interested (but relatively photographically uninformed) public. And I think that is rather special.
Nudes make the world go round
www.NowSeeThis.co.uk

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,999
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2018, 03:26:01 PM »
I know the feeling.
Since they were asking the public to vote for the best pictures, they were holding a draw for two lucky visitors to win one of their chosen images.... I was so hoping that my name wouldn't be picked from the hat!  ;D
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

scouter

  • 35mm
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2018, 07:05:09 PM »
your obviously not in the right camera clubs
here is my Camera Club on flickr
https://www.flickr.com/groups/falmouthcameraclub

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,999
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2018, 09:37:49 PM »
It's a bit far for me ;)
Besides, I'd be totally broke and on serious jetlag if I went every month  ;D

There was one thing that made me smile a bit while I was visiting. One of the members was explaining that it's hard to be a photographer because you have to select the correct aperture and shutter speed...  ::)

So, I guess that's all there is to that photography thing............ 
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

Sandeha Lynch

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,669
    • Visual Records
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2018, 10:50:40 AM »
02Pilot - you might also include 1a:

1a. Understand Genre.  You might eschew the concept of genre as bourgeois, but at least show that you understand it.  Don't present a shot of a rose bush in the Sports Section simply on the grounds that there is a cricket match taking place in the  distance.

(Actual incident at a local camera club competition I once visited.)

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2018, 03:06:48 PM »
That's fairly egregious, though it's hard to judge without seeing the photo. I do appreciate the disruption of expectations with unconventional approaches, but it sounds like this was a question of stretching genre beyond the breaking point just to show something.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

MiguelCampano

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2018, 03:40:12 PM »
The other thing I noticed at the local gallery was that, while there were some photographs, a lot of the work was catalogued under "digital enhancement/manipulation". Basically, used a picture as a canvas, then photoshopped the hell out of it and finished with an image that resembles little of the original work.

I am not against photoshop or enhancements. A bit of contrast here, down highlights and up the saturation, etc. But once you modify so much, add new elements to it... Is it still a "photograph" or just some sort of digital-painting?
Instagram: @_shaken.not.stirred

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2018, 04:52:22 PM »
My rule of thumb is that if I can tell immediately from casual viewing that it's digitally enhanced, it's no longer a straight photograph. Using digital tools to mimic darkroom techniques is one thing, but heavy-handed manipulation is entirely another.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

chris667

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2018, 08:37:01 PM »
As some of you know, I am a recent returnee to photography, after a long hiatus.

I love it, but when digital cameras came out I bought one, and sort of lost interest.

I thought I'd get started again a couple of years ago, and went to my local camera club, as I wanted some criticism to help me improve.

Some of them were very nice, but they were obsessed with all having the same equipment (why would you buy a full frame DSLR if your ambitions are simply to post photos to Facebook?), and the majority took the same pictures. Semi-identical photos from everyone every week gets old fast. And I never got any worthwhile criticism. Lots of praise and "likes", but not lots of photography. And a lot of ego! People seemed to go straight from photography club to "professional", posting glamour pictures of beautiful women looking uncomfortable as proof.

Where do you go to get someone who could give you criticism, and maybe some pointers as to where to go next? I thought about trying to get an LRPS or do a degree, but they both come to quite a lot of money for a hobby. I'd genuinely appreciate some pointers, I feel quite stuck in a rut at the minute.

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2018, 08:48:43 PM »
Useful critique is one of the hardest things to find. I'm very fortunate to have a semi-local photography center that hosts a monthly critique meeting where photographers discuss each other's work (prints only), but this is rare. Most photography groups are just mutual ego massage parlors, as you found. It might be possible to do it here, in carefully controlled circumstances (too easy online for miscommunications to occur). Fundamentally, though, the first question to ask is "what do you want to know?" In other words, in order for any critique to be useful, the people giving it have to have some guide as to what you are trying to achieve, and what problems or weaknesses you are seeking to remedy.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,999
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2018, 09:35:34 PM »
Most photography groups are just mutual ego massage parlors
That's the good ones... I've seen some that were more akin to a bull ring... minus the spears but not minus the bulls...
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

cs1

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2018, 09:45:43 PM »
I think that it's quite difficult to have an environment in an online forum that allows for critique because if you're passionate about your photography, even if you want critique it's important that you have a vis-a-vis conversation with the person reviewing your work so that miscommunication is avoided. There're so many articles out there which deal with topics like "how to deal critique on online forums and social networks and how to overcome disappointment" etc. that I come to the conclusion that online forums aren't the way to go for receiving critique that helps you to get better. Despite that I still think that this forum is a good place for improving my own work. I like the weekend threads on FWs because they inspire me and very often I find good advice in conversations around the weekend threads which help me improve (or at least I think it does). However, I also like FWs because there's nobody giving anybody else critique/advice without being asked for it. :) The world is full of people who think they know better than others and it's very refreshing that FWs isn't such a place. People here let their work speak for itself and they're generally happy to answer questions with really good advice and their primary motivation is to share knowledge and help fellow filmwasters. But for getting regular critiques for your work it's probably a good idea to find a local fellow filmwaster (not necessarily from this forum ;) ) who likes to share thoughts with you. ManuelL and I regularly come up with "photo challenges" that we both try to work on and present the results to each other. These challenges are a good way to leave your comfort zone and try new stuff (especially if you come up with crazy ideas). Maybe finding someone who will do that with you might be worth a try, Chris. It's fun and that way you can give each other advice and critique.

johnha

  • 120
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2018, 02:19:44 AM »
I went to a photography society once (they didn't like the term 'club'!) the whole episode has faded from my memory (save for the memory that I wouldn't go to another one) apart from seeing a fascinating AV presentation using a pair of synchronised Kodak Carousel projectors controlled by an audio tape track.

I too agree that online critique doesn't usually work (even if invited and sensitively given), many times I've decided not to critique when invited if I feel it could be mis-understood or badly received. I see lots of comments like 'Great shots' or 'Fab work', with only limited constructive feedback. I dislike comments directing how they'd have improved the shot "take an extra step back", "it needs more space on the left" etc as you'd have to have been there at the time to know these would have been options. My favourite recent one discussing a film image from a clueless d*****l user, was "you should have switched on lens distortion correction for that one...".

I do think though that online critique is very useful, providing broader perspectives and greater scope for helpful suggestions. Perhaps it might help if we critiqued our own work - explaining what we were trying to achieve, the problems we had, the things we missed at the time and where the image fails to meet our expectations?

Being in the right mood for photography is very important for me, I struggle sometimes to find what I'm looking for out of a scene and after a prolonged period, I often just walk away. In future I might just shoot the scene as a reminder for my failure to find an image out of it - post it on the forum - explain my initial intentions and ask "what would you have done?".

John.


02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2018, 02:56:05 AM »
I cannot emphasize enough the necessity of the photographer asking the right questions in order for critique to be of any use. At the salon I attend, that's the first order of business as the prints are laid out on the table. Without that guidance, any comments are relative to the viewer's vision, not the photographer's, and are thus useless as far as critique. A viewer might offer a new idea or perspective, but that's different from helping the photographer from determine if they've achieved what they intended.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,999
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #21 on: May 03, 2018, 02:12:21 PM »
I know from experience that we are often our toughest critique.
I usually don't like to critique others work as I often think they probably think a bit like I do.
When I take a picture I tend to do all I can to get the most out of the scene. If it didn't turn out like I was expecting, I know I've done everything that I could and no amount of critique could make the image better.
While I could have chosen the wrong aperture, shutter speed, filter and so on, there usually isn't much else that I have full control over. So if it fails, it goes in the fail box.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

MiguelCampano

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #22 on: May 03, 2018, 03:15:00 PM »
I know from experience that we are often our toughest critique.
I usually don't like to critique others work as I often think they probably think a bit like I do.
When I take a picture I tend to do all I can to get the most out of the scene. If it didn't turn out like I was expecting, I know I've done everything that I could and no amount of critique could make the image better.
While I could have chosen the wrong aperture, shutter speed, filter and so on, there usually isn't much else that I have full control over. So if it fails, it goes in the fail box.

That's an interesting observation. Sometimes I see a scene that I like, and I snap a shot (maybe two) of it. Then, once I develop and scan, I find out that I am absolutely not happy with the results, so I mark it in my head as a failure. A couple of months later I revisit the folder and think "huh, that's pretty good", and decide to print it or share it.
Instagram: @_shaken.not.stirred

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #23 on: May 03, 2018, 03:55:29 PM »
Based on the last couple comments, my question (to no one in particular) is this: are you pre-visualizing your photos? In other words, when you frame the shot, do you already know what you want the final product to look like?
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

MiguelCampano

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #24 on: May 03, 2018, 04:19:13 PM »
Based on the last couple comments, my question (to no one in particular) is this: are you pre-visualizing your photos? In other words, when you frame the shot, do you already know what you want the final product to look like?

Sometimes, if it's obvious. Otherwise, I just snap the shot and hope for the best. The vast majority of my pictures are basically for my archives, to remember a particular situation or event, and the context of it it's for me. Kind of like writing in cursive for yourself. Some other people might be able to read it, and that's fine, but you wrote it to yourself, and you understand it.
Instagram: @_shaken.not.stirred

astrobeck

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,403
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2018, 04:48:30 PM »
I'm with Miguel 100% on this.
I do it for me...it's like a journal or life log of sorts of where I've been and what I did.
A life archive.

Sometimes i wish the film edges had little audio strips to draw your fingernail across to play the sounds that were going on at the time...but for the most part, silence is best.

Pete_R

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,190
    • Contax 139 Resource
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2018, 06:02:22 PM »
Based on the last couple comments, my question (to no one in particular) is this: are you pre-visualizing your photos? In other words, when you frame the shot, do you already know what you want the final product to look like?

An interesting question. I think that I should, but I never do. I sometimes think that makes me a less good photographer but other times I think it's my way of working and so be it.

I shoot what is visually interesting to me and which I think has potential to make an interesting final image. Sometimes it works, sometimes often not.

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2018, 06:27:19 PM »
Another way to look at the question I suppose is to consider the final product and see if your eye is drawn to it for the same reasons it was when you took the shot. Something compels us to take a photo in a certain way; is it still there in the final image, in which case it should still be compelling, no? One way or another, for any sort of critique to be even remotely useful, there has to be some connection - however tenuous - between making the photo and the eventual result.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

John Robison

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2018, 07:24:45 PM »
I have a book, "How to Take Good Pictures" published by Kodak. Mine is the 1954 edition. Probably the best book for new (or any) photographers. Lots of basic but still applicable advice. Of course all film cameras, from the simplest, plastic lens, fixed exposure and fixed focus roll film camera to 6X9 folders featuring 4 element Kodak Anastigmats and complex leaf shutters. I learned more from that book than several more well known publications.
 
I've never been an 'artist'. My photographs reflect that. I apparently would rather build a camera than actually take it out and use it.

 I came to photography as a natural progression of a fascination for lenses and mechanical contraptions. The ultimate expression of a fine mechanical contraption that uses a lens is a camera. Well, most cameras before about 1975 when electronics took over the function of cams and escapements for shutter timing. (That is my personal cut off year except for Olympus which improved the OM-1 by bringing out the OM-1n about 1978.)

I don't know how many other members at this forum are perhaps somewhat like me, but I don't consider myself a 'good' photographer. That said, this hobby is a large house with many interesting residents.

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2018, 09:14:07 PM »
I have a book, "How to Take Good Pictures" published by Kodak. Mine is the 1954 edition. Probably the best book for new (or any) photographers. Lots of basic but still applicable advice. Of course all film cameras, from the simplest, plastic lens, fixed exposure and fixed focus roll film camera to 6X9 folders featuring 4 element Kodak Anastigmats and complex leaf shutters. I learned more from that book than several more well known publications.
 
I've never been an 'artist'. My photographs reflect that. I apparently would rather build a camera than actually take it out and use it.

 I came to photography as a natural progression of a fascination for lenses and mechanical contraptions. The ultimate expression of a fine mechanical contraption that uses a lens is a camera. Well, most cameras before about 1975 when electronics took over the function of cams and escapements for shutter timing. (That is my personal cut off year except for Olympus which improved the OM-1 by bringing out the OM-1n about 1978.)

I don't know how many other members at this forum are perhaps somewhat like me, but I don't consider myself a 'good' photographer. That said, this hobby is a large house with many interesting residents.

I don't disagree John, and there are times when I'd rather be tinkering with a camera than using one. But if the question is one of critique, there has to be an assumption of a focus on the photo, not the camera. Some discussion of critique, it is true, will be of a technical nature, but I also tend to think that's usually the easiest piece of the puzzle to connect.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,999
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2018, 09:23:32 PM »
Based on the last couple comments, my question (to no one in particular) is this: are you pre-visualizing your photos? In other words, when you frame the shot, do you already know what you want the final product to look like?
Previsualisation  for me is a strange thing. I call it semi-previsualisation if there is such a thing. I don't plan much, I just let things flow.
When I take the picture, I don't expose to get the perfect negative to then go in the darkroom and fix it all. Instead I expose for how I want the scene to look and then just forget about the whole thing until the film is processed. Then when comes the printing phase, I decide how to best render what was started. The result is not fixed completely at the start.

One of the books that had a big influence on me is "Designing a photograph". When I read it, I had one of those eureka moments and it changed my photography a lot.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 09:25:54 PM by Francois »
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

cs1

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2018, 10:42:31 PM »
Peter, excellent question. When I (re-)started analogue photography I wasn't able to pre-visualise anything. In retrospect I don't think that most of my photos were particularly good because I didn't know what some colours or scenes would look like on film. However, I realised that I wanted to be able to better understand what something I see in nature would look like on film. So I started to only use two cameras as my main cameras and almost exclusively the same type of film to reduce the number of variables. It's not like I'm making a huge effort to pre-visualise a shot every time. But due to the experience with the single type of film and my two main cameras that I slowly (!) gather it's much easier to get a feeling for what a shot will look like. I actually tend to take less shots nowadays because I recognise a bad shot before I take it. :) That being said, I think that this probably works much better for my landscape photography than for street photography (I might be wrong). Since it's nothing systematic, I'd call it "intuitive, experience guided pre-visualisation". ;) And I still love the occasional shot where I don't care about what it might look like in the end.

kentish cob

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • I've a photographic memory, but it's out of film!
    • tony steers photography
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2018, 10:47:07 AM »
Just the word "pre-visualisation" gives me a tension headache. Especially now it gets routinely shortened to "pre-viz"...

I believe that Ansel Adams' original concept was "visualisation", which I completely understand (and sometimes, even achieve)... But pre-visualisation..? that just sounds like trying to visualise something before you've even considered visualising it..!

It smacks of someone taking a simple and perfectly understandable idea and adding complexity in order to feel superior... Apparently Minor White was to blame..!  ::)
Merveille de Bollwiller.
A hardy, vigorous and productive variety with large nuts!

http://www.steers-gallery.co.uk/
http://www.putaframearoundit.co.uk/

cs1

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2018, 11:28:01 AM »
I'm pretty sure that "visualisation" was what Peter had in mind. At least that's the way I understood it. Still, I think that it really depends on the type of shot how much time you take to prepare it. There has to be some difference between wet plate photo and me snapping away on my clicky-snappy. ;)

kentish cob

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • I've a photographic memory, but it's out of film!
    • tony steers photography
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2018, 12:07:22 PM »
I'm pretty sure that "visualisation" was what Peter had in mind. At least that's the way I understood it. Still, I think that it really depends on the type of shot how much time you take to prepare it. There has to be some difference between wet plate photo and me snapping away on my clicky-snappy. ;)

My post was only slightly tongue-in-cheek, insofar as I do get the whole visualisation before taking the shot... I just have a real dislike for the term "pre-visualisation"... It just seems to be nonsense terminology to me.
Minor White's reasoning for the added "pre" was to differentiate from "post-visualisation", which is the process of recalling your "pre-visualisation" at the printing stage... I guess the explanation and labelling is more complex than the actual process!

This leads, perhaps to there being less difference between wet plate and click-snap than you thought, since there's no real requirement for "post-viz" for either..!

We should maybe go on to discuss whether "pre-wash" should just be called "wash"   :P
Merveille de Bollwiller.
A hardy, vigorous and productive variety with large nuts!

http://www.steers-gallery.co.uk/
http://www.putaframearoundit.co.uk/

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,877
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2018, 12:35:20 PM »
Just the word "pre-visualisation" gives me a tension headache. Especially now it gets routinely shortened to "pre-viz"...

I believe that Ansel Adams' original concept was "visualisation", which I completely understand (and sometimes, even achieve)... But pre-visualisation..? that just sounds like trying to visualise something before you've even considered visualising it..!

It smacks of someone taking a simple and perfectly understandable idea and adding complexity in order to feel superior... Apparently Minor White was to blame..!  ::)

I think I may have been responsible for using the term in question first in this thread, so blame me, not Peter.

I understand it to mean envisioning the print as you create the photo. To simply use the word "visualization" without explanation or modification seems ambiguous, but I do agree the hyphenated version sounds a bit too Art-Speak. The Minor White association does not help. I will try to refrain from further lapses.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

kentish cob

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • I've a photographic memory, but it's out of film!
    • tony steers photography
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2018, 01:10:31 PM »
I think I may have been responsible for using the term in question first in this thread, so blame me, not Peter.

Honestly, my post is no more than a lighthearted dig at the language, O2, and probably says more about my psychological wellbeing than anything else, so no apportionment of blame to any quarter, least of all yourself and Peter.

It seems to me that the term has become ubiquitous across all levels of photography, from top pros downwards, but to my mind, "pre" means before, therefor, pre-visualisation means the state before the visualisation formed, ergo, a period devoid of a specific visualisation.

By the way, O2, serendipitous to this conversation, your signature pretty much defines visualisation in a proverbial nutshell... pre or otherwise...  ;D
Merveille de Bollwiller.
A hardy, vigorous and productive variety with large nuts!

http://www.steers-gallery.co.uk/
http://www.putaframearoundit.co.uk/

Jeff Warden

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
    • flickr
Re: In praise of Filmwasters
« Reply #37 on: May 04, 2018, 01:31:49 PM »
Filmwasters is the best photography site on the internet. Don't tell anyone about it or they will come and participate and wreck the place.

 ;)

Chris667, your comment about "glamour pictures of beautiful women looking uncomfortable" made me laugh out loud!
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 02:22:26 PM by Jeff Warden »