Three chairs

[Tim Tucker]

@limr and @sleist, interesting discussion. This is my take:

It looks right to me, it convinces and resonates. This fits with my memory of looking at old faded photos of times long past that I can barely remember.

I'm not convinced when looking at digital pretending to be film. I see a slight difference as digital cannot mimic film accurately. It's fake, a pretender. It's not wrong to do it but you have to remember that viewers will recognise this and it will impact on their perception of the shot. Using digital to fool the post film viewers that it's film and a "cool look" to me is where the real pretending is.

But there is another more fundamental thing about using different media. If
I shoot B&W film my whole approach including selecting a subject is influenced by my understanding of the complete process including it's limitations. I will always come back with different photos than if I went out with a digital camera because digital has different strengths and limitations.

I do not see any merit in an approach where you can shoot something in digital with the idea that you'll change it into whatever you want in post. Why start with the idea that you can shoot it in digital and then make it look like film when it will never quite succeed?

It also is a polaroid, I see no merit in trying to change it into something else. Another thing is that photographers tend to judge images only in terms of the metrics they know. They tend to apply the framework of their understanding of the tools that they use when looking at any photo.

 

[jcdeboever]

Interesting opinions and thoughts.

I don't walk around with my Holga every time I go out and shoot. I have to want to go out and shoot with a Holga.

For me, the Poloroid would be the same way. Limr really provides a great lesson in pre visualization. Part of the art is in the ability to see something that many just walk on by. She see's the final image before it is processed, and in my opinion, one of the stronger attributes of an artist. I think understanding light is right there with it and she gets that right as well.

As far as hardware, she more than likely grabs it because she wants too. That pic would be fine with a digital but never as good as what she seen and the hardware she was carrying.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[chuasam]

It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.

In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain, so be it.

 

[limr]

It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.

In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain, so be it.

Fair enough. I don't believe the process is more important than the final image when it comes to viewing or enjoying the image. I think it does matter to the artist, however. (And apparently, it matters to some in terms of assessment, be it a positive or negative assessment.) The artist will follow the process that is most likely to produce a good final image, and that process is going to depend on how that artist prefers to work. The artist too cares about the end result, but may need to get there in a different way than another artist uses.

You say "spend hours in photoshop...so be it." I read, "spend hours in photoshop" and instantly shudder. If you can do that kind of work and actually enjoy it, at least tolerate it, then more power to you. I can't handle the thought of it. What I'd rather do is to create the image in the first place using a different method - one that I understand and enjoy. And because I enjoy it, it frees me from worrying about how I am going to produce an image, and focus instead on what I'm going to produce.

But that's me, and I don't expect anyone else to follow my workflow.

 

[Tim Tucker]

It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.

In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain, so be it.

Excuse me for breaking the romantic idyl...

Art is not suffering, in fact most artists actually enjoy what they do. Though some artists may be sensitive by nature and exposing their souls my bruise....

It is the end result and not the process that matters as it is always the opinion of the viewer that judges (though the process produces the end result and is essential to the 'artist'). A viewer who will not be educated in the fine art of understanding the process, (lest we all are required to be art snobs ).

Paintings by masters fetch high values because they are unique, one-offs, never to be repeated. It is also assumed, (because those with the money have the education), that those paintings have some intellectual worth, and I agree.

It may also be said that those who paid high prices for unique paintings are protected by forgery laws, (those that have the education and the money may also have the influence...), to ensure their investment. There is however no guarantee that the copy is not better, only that it is not original.

Be as nostalgic as you wish, but also remember that real art is not imagined, it is real, and is in front of your eyes not behind them. And is judged by others.

 

[gsgary]

It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.

In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain, so be it.

I've seen your grain and it looks crap

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[chuasam]

It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.

In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain, so be it.

Excuse me for breaking the romantic idyl...

Art is not suffering, in fact most artists actually enjoy what they do. Though some artists may be sensitive by nature and exposing their souls my bruise....

It is the end result and not the process that matters as it is always the opinion of the viewer that judges (though the process produces the end result and is essential to the 'artist'). A viewer who will not be educated in the fine art of understanding the process, (lest we all are required to be art snobs ).

Paintings by masters fetch high values because they are unique, one-offs, never to be repeated. It is also assumed, (because those with the money have the education), that those paintings have some intellectual worth, and I agree.

It may also be said that those who paid high prices for unique paintings are protected by forgery laws, (those that have the education and the money may also have the influence...), to ensure their investment. There is however no guarantee that the copy is not better, only that it is not original.

Be as nostalgic as you wish, but also remember that real art is not imagined, it is real, and is in front of your eyes not behind them. And is judged by others.

Explain the art where the photographer uses alternative processes or craft a lens out of ice or Quartz. In my early photography schooling we had to do ridiculously painful things like coat a door in liquid light silver gelatin emulsion. Paint it on a window and then do our prints on these cumbersome materials.
Or Bleach prints or toning them with hideously expensive platinum. My GF used to shoot with some cumbersome 4x5 cambo camera with glass plates she had to prepare herself.

I would like to think all that had a purpose. When I could have gotten the same results using technology.

 

[limr]

Explain the art where the photographer uses alternative processes or craft a lens out of ice or Quartz. In my early photography schooling we had to do ridiculously painful things like coat a door in liquid light silver gelatin emulsion. Paint it on a window and then do our prints on these cumbersome materials.
Or Bleach prints or toning them with hideously expensive platinum. My GF used to shoot with some cumbersome 4x5 cambo camera with glass plates she had to prepare herself.

I would like to think all that had a purpose. When I could have gotten the same results using technology.

And by the same token, why do with a computer when you can do it with your hands?

For a process that results in a flat (2-D) image, I still say a lot of it has to do with the preference of the artist and how they feel more comfortable working. But it also could be that the processes that seem so laborious to you might serve the purpose of bringing out an effect in the final image that wouldn't look as good if it were done with technology.

As for explaining an art using alternative processes that can't be done with technology? Let me explain part of my love affair with instant film. With peel-apart instant film, I can interrupt the developing to have the image finish developing on a different surface, to introduce different textures, shading, even colors. That's an emulsion transfer.

Or, I can let the print develop, and then take that print, put it through some very easy paces with hot water and gel medium, and transfer the emulsion from the backing paper to any surface I want. Again, this introduces a texture - a literal, tactile texture, not just a 2-D illusion of texture - that can create a different effect than the print itself. That's an emulsion lift. Here's an early example from when I was learning how to do them:


Stained glass lift by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Finally, I could take the other half that still holds the negative, wash off the black backing with bleach, and end up with a 3x4 negative that could be printed or scanned. And it's not just a duplicate; it's an image with sometimes totally different colors from the print.

Print:

Day 130 - Zelda print cropped by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Recovered negative:

Day 130 - Zelda negative cropped by limrodrigues, on Flickr

I understand the idea of creating effects with technology seems easier and less labor-intensive to you, but to someone else, they might think, "Why waste hours in front of a computer when I can achieve the same effect with one shot and the 5 minutes it takes to lift this emulsion or wash this negative?" I can't speak to other alternative processes (...yet...I have a tintype kit that I'm dying to try!) but to stick with my instant emulsion processes, I do it because ultimately, I like the final product, I also enjoy the process of making it, and no, I cannot get the same results with technology. And even if I could, it's just not nearly as much fun for me.

 

[chuasam]

Please share more of your instant film lifts. But not so many that I'm tempted to get an instant camera too.

And the bleach treatments too. I want to learn bleaching like the way Lillian Bassman did it.

 

[pixmedic]

Please share more of your instant film lifts. But not so many that I'm tempted to get an instant camera too.

And the bleach treatments too. I want to learn bleaching like the way Lillian Bassman did it.

Did someone say....instant camera?

I have TWO of these in mint condition complete with case and flash, er....I mean "blink light", if anyone is genuinely interested in shooting some Polaroids.
You CAN get smaller Polaroid cameras, but you CAN'T get cooler ones. [emoji6]

 

[limr]

Here's a lift:

Day 162 - Wheelbarrow lift by limrodrigues, on Flickr

And the recovered negative:

Wheelbarrow negative by limrodrigues, on Flickr

I learned that when the print is exposed well...

Day 129 - Garage print by limrodrigues, on Flickr

...the negative is overexposed, so if I am shooting with the intention of recovering the negative, then I'll underexpose the print purposely.

Day 129 - Garage negative by limrodrigues, on Flickr


And finally (for now ) my first emulsion lift collage:


Day 317 - Pano by limrodrigues, on Flickr

The lifts don't scan well because the glossy gel medium picks up the light of the scanner, so I'm going to try taking pictures of them to see if they look better. But ultimately, they are the kind of thing that should be seen in person. I like to accentuate the lines of the image with the gel medium to create texture, like in a painting.

 

[limr]

Please share more of your instant film lifts. But not so many that I'm tempted to get an instant camera too.

And the bleach treatments too. I want to learn bleaching like the way Lillian Bassman did it.

Did someone say....instant camera?

I have TWO of these in mint condition complete with case and flash, er....I mean "blink light", if anyone is genuinely interested in shooting some Polaroids.
You CAN get smaller Polaroid cameras, but you CAN'T get cooler ones. [emoji6]

Roll film?

 

[pixmedic]

Please share more of your instant film lifts. But not so many that I'm tempted to get an instant camera too.

And the bleach treatments too. I want to learn bleaching like the way Lillian Bassman did it.

Did someone say....instant camera?

I have TWO of these in mint condition complete with case and flash, er....I mean "blink light", if anyone is genuinely interested in shooting some Polaroids.
You CAN get smaller Polaroid cameras, but you CAN'T get cooler ones. [emoji6]

Roll film?

Umm....
I don't think so.
I THINK it takes the instant sheet packs?
When I get off shift and actually remember I'll snap a pic of the open back.

Haven't looked in a while. They have just been sitting in the closet.

 

[LARZRARZ]

I love it. I instantly felt like I had been there before and wish I was there now. This so-called snapshot contains a lot of feeling in my opinion, making it much more than just a "snapshot of a nice scene".

 

[limr]

I love it. I instantly felt like I had been there before and wish I was there now. This so-called snapshot contains a lot of feeling in my opinion, making it much more than just a "snapshot of a nice scene".

Thank you very much

Hey, @pixmedic even if those are pack film cameras, they will still be hard to use soon seeing as though Fuji discontinued their color pack film. Or there might be some info on converting them to use Instax film, which seems to be going strong at the moment.

At least I can do emulsion lifts with the Impossible Project film.