Fly by night
Iwas thinking lately about my night shooting; how it has been all shot to hell by the dramatic changes in the photo industry. All of my creative processes were influenced by the chemicals, lenses, timers and machines that made these images possible - I had intimate knowledge of the camera, the film, the processing and manipulation that made my particular vision come to fruition. I know that film sees the colors of light differently than the human eye, and I used those different colors to tone my images and make them my own. There was a real and valuable craft in using my hands, experience and mind to create art - art that was representative of the real word, but manipulated in such a way to make it my own world.
I was in mourning for the industry that I loved, that was a part of me, for a long time - I took no photos.
I sincerely beleve that there is magic in the interplay of light, time, gelatin, paper and glass. It was not lost on me that to share what I see with others meant working in the dark, alone.
It forced me to really believe in my images; believe while shooting, processing and printing. It was an investment of money, time and heart.
Not so much with my little digital number - but I'm trying.
Next step is a REAL digital camera (with lenses!) and some classes in Photoshop.
Word of the day:
Nocturnal adj.
1. of or pertaining to the night.
2. done, occurring, or coming at night.
3. active at night (opposed to diurnal):nocturnal animals.
4. opening by night and closing by day, as certain fowers.
posted by coffeesnob @ Monday, May 15, 2006
5 Comments:
Hey! A picture of my block!
Actually these pix look much more beautiful than Salem has been lately, in the rain and fog. Guess that's the power of film to romanticize everything.
The interface of art and science is always frictional. When new science comes in it threatens the old. You were not the first to put gels over a lens and bump the stop in post. Instead of mourning for slices of dead cow, use this buffer time to pioneer through the infancy (and it's still in its infancy) of digital cameras and make the medium your own. Take it places no one ever thought it could go. Make your footprint the first one everyone follows. The path is yours.
Think about what camera technology did to painting. It didn't kill painting the way digital is killing film but eventually artists like Adams and Steiglitz to name two elevated film to the same plateau as those who still used brushes.
I have one idea. I'll tell you in person tonight. So you have to come to trivia now.
Huzudo!
When I got a digital camera I stopped taking pictures. I was never formally taught how to use a camera. My dad just handed me his old ones (both he and my grandfather were great photographers, that is, before my grandfather went blind). He showed me what the dials did and I figured out the rest. I wasn't half bad for an untrained 14 year old. But when I got my digital I got scared and confused and I stopped even trying. I have pulled out the digital here and there recently, and I too am trying to understand how to make a computer see what I knew how to make a real camera see.
You really should talk to the Mac Doc. He is amazing with digital and has captured images so extraordinary that magazines have rejected them saying that they must have been doctored on Photoshop. I am trying to get him to give me a copy of a mountainscape he took in Utah. It's amazing.
I've never used gels - that's cheating. (it's like putting on perfume rather than just taking a shower) Also "bump the stop in post" is an unfamiliar phrase to me. After selecting the right film, paper and process I burn, dodge, make long exposures and/or mess around with the color balance; but I'm an Old School photographer - I like to compose my shots in the camera and print the entire image - including the edges (cropping means that you didn't previsualize your image). Call me a purist if you must, but I think the skill is in the shooting and the printing NOT in the fucking with the image afterwards to make it something it never should have been or that does not represent the photographer's reality.
That's why I have trouble with the digital image - where is the magic? I continue to mourn the slices of dead cow. Sorry, you'll have to give me more time. I guess that there is something more "natural" about film, paper and chemicals that is lacking (for me, anyway) in digital. It's too easy - it seems wrong. Digital is anyone's medium, for basic snapshots there is absolutely no skill required. I don't have much, but I have photographic skills a-wastin'.
Anyway, I was looking for sympathy or understanding, not answers.
I appreciate your comment about making a new path - maybe I'm too close to the front of this storm - It took me decades to find my vision last time, and I'm still blinking in the glare of all of these pixels.
By the way, film's not dead or even dying. It's just not fashonable. As long as one person lives who knows how to use a film camera and develop the film in a real darkroom It's still healthy. Just because the money isn't there doen't mean the art's done. Or, am I totally off base and confused about what art is?
Anyway, personal peeve here. Just because something's no longer cutting edge, or even the way the majority is doing things doesn't mean it's dead. It may not longer quite as easy to make a living with it, but money should not (in any world I want any part in) be the sign of legitamacy. Money is another form of energy. The ways to generate it change in effectivenes, but these changes shouldn't be taken as any sign that something is more legitimate. (sputter) (cough)
Ahem excuse me. As I said, you seem to have sparked a personal peeve here...
Post a Comment
<< Home