Going back to real photography

seafoto · Nov 12, 2010

seafoto submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Going back to real photography

I am on the brink of returning to my darkroom,the dark, the developers and the smell of fixer. Digital is magic and can result in stunning pictures but they are not the product of my skill. I will never forget my first print emerging in the tray, and my first good print some time later.
I am in awe of the vast knowledge of subscribers on this site and wonder why they stick to this peculiar, messy long winded method of making pictures ?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

holmburgers · Nov 12, 2010

It's the cheapest way to get the highest quality in your photography. And we spend enough time starting at our computer screens as it is...

Cheers,

Welcome back!

Grif · Nov 12, 2010

It's a hobby. I take snapshots with one of the "dark side" products,,, but when I'm out "taking pictures", it's a whole focus, mind set, engrossing process. The process for me also involves the dark room,,, even thou I"m not doing my own prints, and I do send out color processing.

Dan Henderson · Nov 12, 2010

seafoto said:
I ... wonder why they stick to this peculiar, messy long winded method of making pictures ?

You make being peculiar, messy, and long winded sound like bad things. I do it for those reasons: it is peculiar in that few practice this craft any longer. It can be messy if you get sloppy, but that is what mops are for. And something that is easy and quick to achieve is rarely the best that can be done.

But I make photographs the traditional way because I can better express my artistic vision that way. And because I am infinitely more satisfied looking at (and feeling) a fiber based print that began as a film negative than I am an inkjet print from a digital camera. Because for me, there is far more craftsmanship involved in producing a photograph the traditional way. Because 2 hours in the darkroom is more pleasurable than 2 minutes at the computer. Because, as Stephen Stills wrote, "I don't do bidness that don't make me smile."

Why do great guitar players "stick to" 50 year old Strats and tube amps?
Why does Elmore Leonard still write his books with a pen on yellow legal pads?

BetterSense · Nov 12, 2010

I don't think photography is peculiar, messy, and long winded. I think that it is simple, easy, efficient, high performance, and beautiful. Making pictures with computers is the complicated, peculior, roundabout, and frustrating way.

perkeleellinen · Nov 12, 2010

Liberated from the computer. Most of us sit in from of these damn things all day long - imagine spending your spare time sat in front of a work tool.

lxdude · Nov 12, 2010

seafoto said:
...peculiar, messy long winded...

Perhaps because that describes a lot of us?

Sirius Glass · Nov 12, 2010

seafoto, welcome back from the Dark Side!

Moopheus · Nov 12, 2010

I'm sure a lot of people here have some variant of this story--I did it as a kid, in high school and college, kind of got away from it for a while, came back, tried a digital camera, then another, not happy with results, dusted off old film camera, sent films to lab, not happy with results, eventually realized that crappy machine prints were even crappier than they used to be, determined to start doing my own lab work again, etc. Yes, digital cameras keep getting better in some ways, but they just aren't as much fun. Playing with chemicals is fun! And there aren't enough legal ways to do that.

Ever try setting type by hand, in a composing stick? Now, that's a long-winded process!

guitstik · Nov 12, 2010

"It is the sweat of your brow that makes you proud of a days labor boy". "If you don't have a little sweat (equity) in what you do you don't have any pride in what you have done". These words ring in my ears every day of my life and have since I was five years old and helping my Grand daddy work on the tractor or work the farm. His voice was rough and deep and he spoke with a stern tone that let you know he meant what he said. I am looking forward to getting back into the darkroom after such a long hiatus and I will enjoy every minute of it because I will have sweat equity in the process no matter how long it takes. Digital only allows you the opportunity to develop a serious case of carpel tunnel syndrome and a eye strain. It is hard to describe to those that have to have instant gratification that there are some things that are worth the wait.

dande · Nov 12, 2010

I can't agree more.

I am also getting back into film photography. It feels great because that is where my creativity lies. Digital is ok for those who want to shoot 100 pictures hoping to get one or two good ones. For me though, taking the time to set up the camera, composing the picture on a ground glass screen, using the zone system to determine exposure, etc. etc. has infinitely better results and is why I love photography so much.

markbarendt · Nov 13, 2010

There are a variety of reasons for me.

Simple camera work is probably the biggest thing for me.

My favorite films are 400 speed C-41 process films (color print and chromogenic B&W negatives). They have so much exposure latitude that I don't sweat about overexposure. This shot (there was a url link here which no longer exists) was done with am RB67 F4@400 Fuji npc160. About 3-stops overexposed compared to the sunny-F16 rule.

guitstik · Nov 14, 2010

Mark, that photo is only viewable by members of that particular group.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 14, 2010

I came back to analog photography from digital photography too. I fell into the digital trap too. Since starting digital photography and spending piles of money, I bought many digital camera and 4 Macintosh computers, 2 inkjet printers and various peripherals. Most of it is now E waste. It's not all bad. I built up enough skills to make a transition from being a commercial photographer to being a tech monkey at a university. The good thing is that I kept all my photo gear and my darkroom. I came back to analog photography with a fresh perspective. There's a new freedom in using my old camera and darkroom gear. There's no constant need to upgrade my gear doing analog photography. The only problem is that all the photo labs and camera stores that I patronized are mostly gone. It's very tough to get good color film processing. After shooting a roll of film, don't miss the instant gratification. I love the anticipation of processing my film and looking at fresh out of the fixer. There something real about this versus a bunch of glowing pixels off of a computer screen.

GRHazelton · Nov 14, 2010

Back to the darkroom

I recently developed film for the first time in many years. I've been gathering equipment and finding my old kit for some time.

My first 2 cassettes were some Plux X of uncertain vintage. They'd been stored too warm, too long. A "reel" challenge to load on a Nikkor (sp?) stainless steel reel, the sort you load from the inside out. Yessss! The years in the attic had imparted a powerful curl!

But they let me get my chops back for loading the reels. D76 revealed faint images, enough to let me guess that the film might have been 20+ years old! I may scan them in and see if anything can be salvaged.

The next several cassettes were in-date and yielded good images. I'm trying to decide whether to scan them in to Elements 9 for cataloging and "contact" sheets, or to fire up the Paterson contact printer. My feeling us that Elements would let me tag them for easy access by subject and easily evaluate the sharpness for "real" printing in the darkroom. And save paper for enlarging.

For me, at least, black and white belongs "in the dark." I've never gotten a decent print either from digital or scanned negatives in BW from my Epson R1800. In the past I worked with a dear friend who was a wizard at color wet work, but I never got any good. So, I'll do color on the Epson and BW on the Beseler 23.

markbarendt · Nov 14, 2010

guitstik said:
Mark, that photo is only viewable by members of that particular group.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Hope this works.

paulie · Nov 14, 2010

it certainly can be long winded.

carbon ritual .....

1 day to make glop and pour 10 tissues
3 days drying time
1 day sensitiser drying time
1 day printing
1 day dry and print clearing

finally dry and sign print assuming you didnt come across any problems during the process

1 week to get from beginning to end, i must be mad lol

i can make a decent fibre print in half an hour
its a bit like playing on a pool table after slogging it out on a full size snooker table , easier thats for sure

so streamline your printing and you will have a great looking fibre print in less time than it takes to clean the head on your printer

Paulie

Athiril · Nov 14, 2010

seafoto said:
I am on the brink of returning to my darkroom,the dark, the developers and the smell of fixer. Digital is magic and can result in stunning pictures but they are not the product of my skill. I will never forget my first print emerging in the tray, and my first good print some time later.
I am in awe of the vast knowledge of subscribers on this site and wonder why they stick to this peculiar, messy long winded method of making pictures ?

'Digital photography' is real photography, and is the product of the photographer's skill and expression.

markbarendt · Nov 14, 2010

Athiril said:
'Digital photography' is real photography, and is the product of the photographer's skill and expression.

Well that's your definition and sure, there are a lot of people who think that way, but it's not seafoto's definition and it's okay to have different definitions.

Dan Henderson · Nov 14, 2010

do painters who use watercolors, acrylics, or oils argue like this? (This is not a rhetorical question; I have never had the nerve to ask any of my painter friends this question. I am afraid they would think I have been drinking my fixer.)

I like doing analog photography better than digital photography and I can better express my vision with film and darkroom prints. But I think it is silly to argue that digital photography is not photography. It is a different medium just as oil painting is different from watercolors, but it is photography.

BetterSense · Nov 14, 2010

do painters who use watercolors, acrylics, or oils argue like this?

Analogy fail. Watercolors, acrylics, and oils are comparible to B&W, color negative, color slide, or perhaps 35mm, medium format, and large format.

The real analogy would be arguing which is better, painting or photography. Or indeed, painting and digital imaging. There was a time when painting vs. photography was a real debate; thankfully everyone has gotten over it and now nobody asks painters why they just don't take a picture. Eventually, the same will happen with real photography and digital photography, and everyone will be better off.

brian d · Nov 14, 2010

lxdude said:
Perhaps because that describes a lot of us?

Yup...or at least some of us

not sure about long winded but peculiar and messy describe me quite well

Christopher Walrath · Nov 14, 2010

Why, you ask? Because it's there.

Wayne · Nov 14, 2010

Athiril said:
'Digital photography' is real photography, and is the product of the photographer's skill and expression.

Digital photography is to real photography what Bobby Bonds is to Hank Aaron. Both do require some natural skill and, well, other stuff.

Wee Gillis · Nov 15, 2010

Call us purists if you want. My own involvement goes way back to the 60's. We understood the need to take ownership of the final image with all the dust spots and film processing imperfections staring at us after the dry down of our final print, our "photo opus". If we aren't careful we will soon be buying our travel photos at kiosks in strips of five or six. Shot buy someone else we will make excuses for them over coffee and cookies with our writhing friends firmly tacked down...(Oh..did we already do this before?)

Going back to real photography

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency