I couldn't agree more, Eddie. Thus, my own answer to the follow-up question would also have been a resounding "No."
:)
Ken
Printable View
I couldn't agree more, Eddie. Thus, my own answer to the follow-up question would also have been a resounding "No."
:)
Ken
hi ken
i think a lot of it has to do with taste.
some folks like looking at perfect .. picture perfect photographs.
like f64 stuff.
large negative ( maybe ) perfect grainless negative, perfectly executed film then printed
tho show an uber level of technical perfection.
THAT is what they think photography is all about.
show the same person something that was made on the other side of the street
or something created by someone who picked up a camera for the first time
whose photograph was taken with a disposable 35mm p/s camera, and processed
by somebody at a mini lab or drug store ... and they will think it is crap,
even though the subject and image and everything about it is beautiful, or is a documentary image
from their life &c ...
and show someone who likes the gritty ( maybe ) from the disposable camera the perfect contact print
and they will pass it by as a calendar photo.
i agree with eddie too, that in the end it takes knowing the medium and how to use it, more than just winging it :)
If its an accident is it art?
Seems to me that the quality of the craft invested in a piece of art is a judgable thing.
Seems to me also that it should not be an accident, good art, I think, should be intentional, it should be an expression of something.
Being good at our craft I think is part of that.
Some art is very intentional about incorporating chance, and there's the old Aristotelian dictum--"Art loves chance, and chance loves art."
But photography is part science. The chance must have some connection to the science.Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
You can give an elephant a brush, paint, and canvas, and you'll get an image. Give an elephant an enlarger, paper, and chemicals, odds are you won't.
I agree, so long as future access to the tent is not restricted by the opinions of those who are already inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnanian
:)
Ken
Chance might take the form of something like the decisive moment. Even in landscape and architectural photography there is a decisive moment, perhaps when the light and the clouds are right or when no one is in the scene, or when someone is standing in just the right place to show the scale of the subject, or when the indoor light of a building is balanced by the outdoor light. Portrait photography is heavily dependent on chance expressions. Perhaps only studio still life is the exception, and even then, the inspiration of the photographer is an uncertain element.
I feel like that if I have lacking in any area of technique in terms of getting a technically perfect image, then I have more things that are out of my control than I am comfortable with.
For example, out of all my LF lenses, only one needs to be seriously corrected for focus shift when using IR film, my Schneider 350mm F/11. I had to go through about $40 worth of film in a roll film back before I knew where that correction was, an unwelcome "leave it to chance" kind of thing.
Once I am 100% on my technical ability, then all the things that I love that are not in my control have a chance to play a much greater role in making an extraordinary image happen versus just a technically perfect one.
That's pretty much how I roll...
Yes, of course large format is much more expensive than roll film per frame but, that is ignoring the fact that we tend to expose far fewer frames of LF. That high per frame cost along with the effort involved in setting up the camera make you think about what you're doing and there fore, you use far less film (and get a higher ratio of "keepers"). So, the total photographic expense over a year is lower with LF than it is with roll film...becasue there is less waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by cepwin
Enlargers are almost free these days...it's mostly just a matter of finding one that hasn't been beat to hell, parted out of junked.
Easy there with that "We" stuff...;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by BradS
I actually shoot up to 6-8 sheets on a key shot in order to "Dust Bracket" versus at most three frames of 120 on the same shot. Reason bieng is that I practice all the best methods of dust control that you could possibly find using a google search in a week and still have issues with dust on the film during the exposure, so LF has turned out to be *very* expensive for me at least in real world use.
And yes, you can find decent 4x5 enlargers for a song or even ones with a cold light head and a few lenses for $200-$300. Then you are good to go with a $100 Rodagon 150mm 5.6 for most print sizes. Add a clean Negaflat carrier and you might not need to spend $150-$200 on a glass carrier with anti newton glass....but then again, you just might.
As far as souping the film goes, there are a few ways to skin that cat, but they can have issues with consistency, needing full darkness, messy trays, sheets popping out of a Mod-54, getting raked over the coals for one of those Nikor tanks....or you are like me and value your time and pony up for a Jobo Expert Drum and roll it on a motor base or a full blown Jobo and just cut out the BS....
So yeah, in theory it can be cheap, maybe a grand for a Crown Graphic, dusty D2 or 45M and some taco sessions with your favorite developing tank if you are just a hobby dabbler....but I am very serious about it and between the camera, 7 lenses, 30 film holders, two 6x12 roll film backs, a mint Rodagon 150mm F/4 Apo-N, about 3,000 sheets of 4x5 film and a few other goodies, I am at over $16K for LF in tax year 2012...:-O
On the other hand I did make a slick magnetic 20x24 easel for $50 and a jumbo rotary drum for 30x40 for about the same...
So I guess it can be cheap but as in most cases, you tend to get what you pay for....