Note to OP: just go out and shoot whatever you prefer, and quit thinking about things that don't matter one whit.
What is a master but a master student? And if that's true, then there's a responsibility on you to keep getting better and to explore avenues of your profession.
Magic, Alchemy etc. defines this medium, attachment to the process, the skill itself, not the end product.
Nostalgia is left to the modern man, who is soulless being by default and is attached only to his own emptiness of existence, which ironically is in color.
When activities such as shooting B&W film., print it Yourself are difficult, only people who have a strong personal stake will participate.
I think to know emptiness, you have to have at least some idea of fullness? Heightened expectations and the inevitable disappointment of life can largely be attributed to those rose tinted specs in my opinion. Our ideas of what we want something to be usually come from what has gone before and by default, what has gone before is always better - I guess we wouldn't model our lives on it otherwise! What I'm saying is, because of a cultural obsession with nostalgia, we're simply incapable of seeing any beauty or finding any happiness in the now. Beauty is completely internalised almost, never letting the external in. We're too quick to dub what's around us 'banal', not necesarily because our ideas of beauty are better, but because we've built them up to be so. It's not a question of disregarding your ideas about aesthetics, but opening your eyes and embracing beauty, not as a solid concept or opinion, but as something that can affect us whenever, wherever and basically when you allow it. I think a lot of traditionalists are switched off in this regard.
Originally Posted by georg16nik
Everything is in the past.
The future does not exist.
The present.....shit, now it's past too.
The OP is right about a lot of people who love to re-experience the "old methods" and the "old looks" of photography, and to place their tripods in the holes left behind by the greats. They are nostalgia buffs. That's all fine.
Some people shoot film because it's a bit of an oddity and draws attention to themselves.
Some people shoot film because they like it for the aesthetics.
Lets face it, film ain't coming back as a major medium. It will forever be a nitch product now.
So who cares what anyone thinks of which process you use or if it will become more "popular"
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Originally Posted by blansky
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Been thinking a bit more
If silver jelly photography goes what will I turn to? - The answer was easy and instantaneous, charcoal on rough paper - Etching and other print making media are as process oriented as photography - So it will be back to charcoal, nothing like it for following the line of a nice ripe arse - Mind you, a sugar-lift aquatint could do a good job of that as well, but a new etching press would be as much as a SH 10x8" enlarger
This leads to the next thought, that there are parallels to silver jelly photo and the use of etching and lithography after the introduction of offset lithography in that the media have been used as artistic avenues since then - However, with etching we had strong work like that of Jim Dine and others who pushed the etching medium in ways the image making aspect of silver jelly does not seem to - I don't recall people moaning in ecstasy over copper or zink in nitric acid or the benefits of Dutch mordant in the way photographers are currently doing with Pyro and Amidol - I hold that there is a lot to learn from this parallel
Digital? - No, I only use that for communication, generally making a nuisance of myself by upsetting people on this site
I care, and my bank manager smiles - When digiography came along my colleagues laughed at my continuance with the medium, while I drove away with a super cheap 10x8" DeVere enlarger and a Sinar
Originally Posted by blansky
Now the tide is turning and silver jelly original prints are getting sought by serious collectors, not very much in Australia yet (or ever) but in Asia, Europe and South America, so I imagine in USA soon - I am not pushing my work in Australia apart Rae's gallery in Pemberton and via my website
Serious workers are encouraged to stick with it and work hard at making the medium work in its niche
Why does it have to be about anything the op stated?
I don't know how "young" the OP is referring to, but I am 32. I briefly learned analog methods in 1995/96 as a sophomore in high school, and by the time I graduated in 1998, the first digitals were starting to come out. From 1999 to 2008 I didnt shoot a single thing, and my Canon EOS Elan grew dust. In 2008 I purchased my Nikon D90, and became knee deep in digital gear, ps actions, lr presets, and anything else I could 'click' to make my photographs something they didn't start out as. Before long my images looked just like everyone else's using the same digital software, and my mind was nothing but a bunch of mindless, thoughtless mouse clicks.
Film slows me down. It "makes" me think. It allows me to create the photo, and if screw up, there isn't a mouse click in the world that will fix it. My only option is to think a little more, and go back and do it over.
For me it isn't about nostalgia, or "old film looks".... It's about mental stimulation and creative control.
Last edited by ChristopherCoy; 04-21-2012 at 07:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I'm a few years older than ChristopherCoy. I prefer projecting my images in all their splendor. Therefore, for me the process is to get it right in the camera without any post processing. I don't even get to fix color balance or exposure mistakes because I'm shooting reversal film. But I can project the image (every one is an original) at a much higher quality than I could with one of those new digital projectors. If I wanna share it online, I have a scanner right next to my computer, and it only takes a couple minutes to scan the film.
I do still shoot digital, but for me reversal film does what I want it to do better than digital. For how long? Don't know, so I'm gonna shoot it while I still can.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
I'm almost retired. I still like shooting landscapes because it presents a spiritual sense of awe and escape from urban environment (I live in NYC). But I also shoot urban landscapes, people and anything that has dynamic lighting, interesting compositions, irony, unusual composition or whatever my eye finds interesting, is game for a shot. I don't shoot 35mm any more but sometimes shoot 120 medium format. I find film slows me down to think about what I'm shooting and how to capture it. I think my film shots are "better" than my digital. But I shoot digital too because it's easier to carry a P&S on my belt and have a camera available all the time. Some of my digitals are fine too. I do enjoy nostalgia, but I consider myself modern too and use LR3, Elements, as well as Premiere when converting my stills to movies for posting on YouTube or for Blu-Tooth display on HDTVs. (I still have movie and slide projectors but haven't used them in years).
I guess my point is it's probably not correct to pigeonhole people into one thing or another. Most of us adapt and change with the times using what we learned in the past as well as its tools and experience the new as well.