December challenge - engaging discussion
For those of us in the northern Hemisphere the days are getting progressively shorter, colder and searching interest outdoors can be futile.
This month's challenge is one that allows us to stay indoors, perhaps by the warmth of a blazing fire.
So this month's challenge is to provide meaningful discussion. This could take the form of asking other members for opinions on recent work (or work of others), questioning how (if) others apply the rules of composition, or even just suggesting a video other members may benefit from.
This is your chance to see how the thoughts of others might align or differ with your own or ask those questions you are reluctant to ask outside of this safe environment.
... and on that point let's all remain respectful. There are no stupid questions or opinions, and this is not a place to demonstrate inflated egos.
Although the goal this month is to generate healthy discussion between members we still yearn to see and be inspired examples of your work.
I'm interested to see what opinions/questions/unique viewpoints this group comes up with.
14 Comments
On the topic of switching from film to digital. How has it effected your work, if at all? Has anyone here ever gone the other direction, from digital to film and how many of us actually do still use film?
Hi Nathan!
Film? I thought about. Several film bodies are around. Just buy a film and attach the lens.
Where to develop it? Making prints? The huge mass production lab? I still remember holding the results of my very first prints on hands. Grey in grey. I was shockinglv disappointed. Years later I learned the basics to develop the stuff and make prints. Now it would mean organizing chemicals. Enlarger. Space. Time. Dealing with low dynamic range of film. I am scared away. My resources are too valuable.
I process and print my own film, and still in this digital age do so. I also print my own black and white, though the cost of materials has gone up so much, and many of my favorite materials are no longer available. I like digital for its immediacy but prefer the look of an actual well printed darkroom print. Mass production labs are still available. However my preference is still the hand printed photograph.
Having the stuff at your fingertips and space and time to spend in the dark room, maybe I might like it too. But these resources are short for me. And therefore no option. What counts for me is the result I can see as a print. Less the way how to get it.
The important topic for me is more the why did you expose, compose a detail or neglect it. Learning about how you see things. It tells me more about you, your values and targets. The 'how' easily can become a religious discussion about 'right' and 'wrong'. That is no pleasure, not for me.
Fun question Nate.
I still shoot film for both work and fun from time to time and really love the change. Working with film forces me to slow down and really think about what I want to say visually. Yes the cost and access are realities to be considered but to my eye the results and process are worth the effort.
This meme sort of sums up the whole thing perfectly.
That's a wonderful meme Julian - I think it describes perfectly how film forces you to be more thoughtful.
This doesn't really apply to ICM work of course. Due to the number of variables involved it requires a large number of shots to get something decent - there's a reason the movement has progressed so much in the digital age.
BTW - great to hear your voice in the group again.
It is so good to see you Alan and the whole group is going strong!
I've missed the inspiration and discussions.
And I’ve missed your inspiration FOR discussions 🙂
The look really is different and is one has never worked with film and printed from film onto silver halide material the difference will not be apparent. A silver halide print has the image internal in the emulsion while an ink jet print has the image ON the surface. IMHO when the image is in the emulsion it will have more of an indefinable glowing quality that cannot be duplicated in an ink jet print. Highlights will be smoother and the shadow areas will carry more detail when the print is properly executed. When I have shown ink jet prints side my side with silver halide prints the observing public will gravitate to the silver halide print. I have had them ask "is that a real photograph"? So I am torn between the art I have known and worked with for over 40years or do I move to ink jet, where i am a very good printer simply due to costs. It would be nice to not have that question to answer.
Good question Nathan!
My workflow and creativity both changed with the move to digital. In my latter days of film I was shooting Ektachrome slide film and processing at home.
At that time we were living overseas, supplies were hard to get and I basically stopped shooting.
With digital I can shoot whenever I want and see instant results. Cheap memory cards allow for far greater experimentation (critical for ICM work) and creativity.
I don't think it is any coincidence that creative genres such as ICM has seen such massive growth since the introduction of digital and cheap memory.
I do make my own prints though, as I think it helps to have that control.
On the flip side, I DO feel that we have become less intentional in the digital world. When you couldn't see the results of your 24/36 exposure film until it was processed it really forced you to be more thoughtful and ensure exposure, composition etc were correct before hitting the shutter button.
In short, I would simply not be able to perform the type of work I now enjoy in a film environment as it would be both cost and time prohibitive.
Cost is becoming more and more of an issue, no doubt. The days when I would set aside at least one day a week to print are, I think, gone forever unless I were to win the Lottery, and you have to buy a ticket for that one. I used to get my paper for about $2-3.00 per sheet, now it is nearly $10.00 for the same thing. Even when I printed Cibachromes/Ilfochromes, a 16x20 box of their premium material came out to about $7.00 per sheet and 4x5 film was as low as $.50 per sheet, now it's $5.00 per sheet when I process at home. So that's a big factor for me.
PS. I do really prefer the look of a well processed fiber based print to anything else though.
A question for the group.
With over 5 Billion images created every day (unverified statistic) and an ever growing number of AI images being generated daily is it time our language evolve to reflect the difference between the happy snaps, selfie, phone grabs and what some might call actual photography?
I am in no way trashing any one form of image creation, nor am I third classing anyones "art", just wondering if there could be a linguistic evolution reflecting the differences.
We have words to differentiate written forms, like poetry, prose, graffiti, etc, why can't (or should) we have names that help shed clarity on image creation.
As an example, I use the word "Synthography" to describe AI generated images when I'm teaching. I know it is not a real word but it seems to get the point across in a more memorable way than AI blah blah.
Thoughts?
Great question Julian. I see AI where used as a prompt-based creative tool as a creditable artform in its own right, and am DEAD AGAINST ANY image that poses as a photograph when not taken using a camera.
The use AI in editing is a different question. AI in this case simply describes the method used for manipulation, just as artists used choice of film/paper/chemicals, dodging and burning etc to create their desired outcome.