A Dying Eye Film Photography

A pity about the poor sound quality. I didn't catch half of what he said. But what I did hear was very interesting.
 
Yes indeed, very interesting. A little bit harsh. Has he tried producing an exhibition-standard print, digitally?
I’ve often heard this “…just push a button…” idea. First, why not show me an enlarger where you don’t push a button. Or a camera…
 
After giving it some thought I found that I disagreed with just about everything he said.
He seemed to be saying that the film process was more meaningful than digital because it was more involved and time-consuming. But if this argument is valid, then you could say that the wet collodian process was more meaningful than film, because to practice it you had to take a horse and cart and a portable darkroom tent with you when you went out to do a bit of landscape photography....
In a sense, the production of a superb, meaningful photographic print isn't governed by the amount of effort required to make it. It comes from the mind of the photographer. Mr. Sanderson seems to be implying that digital is easy. But I think it is just as difficult to achieve excellence with the digital route as it is with any other approach.
 
It is true, as anyone who owns an iPhone (other devices are available) will attest, that digital images can be made very easily indeed.
This is not even slightly new. We should remember the slogan "You press the button, we do the rest." which was entirely based on analogue technology. That's the true comparison here, not the airy heights of "meaningful" imaging.
The only significant difference is the speed of delivery – improvements in technology mean the the digital image arrives much more quickly, but so does your Amazon parcel. So does a note from your auntie in Australia.

I rather hope the Mr Sanderson, who seem like a pleasant chap, might respond to this.

He is of course, entirely right about the pleasures of handling well-made equipment. Photography of either breed is not unique in this. Chefs, for instance, are very fond their knives, some of them as expensive as a large format camera.
 
I think he's trying to say that the more you have invested in something, the more pleasure and value you get from it. The rewards are as much from the journey as the final results.
 
Greatness in anything requires constant work, refining craft, trial, failure, repeat. Digital is a different media than Silver but not better- or worse. I've seen rotten analogue work and rotten digital work. I've also seen both done at the highest possible level.

My preference for silver printing is very specific. I have never seen a printed digital medium that - to my eye at least - is as beautiful as silver print. Someday, I want to try making digitally manipulated internegatives to contact print on silver...
 
That's a very kind interpretation, but he does seem to be saying that wet prints are better, because of the effort and time put into them.
As for pleasure, he begins with the smell of leather and the handling of finely-engineered equipment. I happen to agree, but these opening remarks scotch the hypothesis of more effort producing more pleasure. He is a mere spectator of the leather, and he has made no contribution at all to the fine engineering.
As mentioned above, the corollary is that if silver-gelatin is better than digital, because of the effort, then collodion is in turn better and the Daguerreotype better still, because of the tremendous effort needed to polish and clean the plate. There's a greater risk to your health too. I can't speak for the effort needed with Bitumen of Judea.
Finally, he scuttles his entire argument at about 6.22 where he says: "It's not just the equipment; it's what you do with it."
To be fair, I don't think he was intending to deliver a lesson in formal logic, but merely strolling round his own ideas, experiences and preferences.
 
For the beauty of the print itself, rather than the image (if that distinction can be made) some people commend the platinum print. It needs much more effort and skill, too. Platinum printers now use digitally-corrected negs.
 
David M said:
That's a very kind interpretation, but he does seem to be saying that wet prints are better, because of the effort and time put into them.
As for pleasure, he begins with the smell of leather and the handling of finely-engineered equipment. I happen to agree, but these opening remarks scotch the hypothesis of more effort producing more pleasure. He is a mere spectator of the leather, and he has made no contribution at all to the fine engineering.
As mentioned above, the corollary is that if silver-gelatin is better than digital, because of the effort, then collodion is in turn better and the Daguerreotype better still, because of the tremendous effort needed to polish and clean the plate. There's a greater risk to your health too. I can't speak for the effort needed with Bitumen of Judea.
Finally, he scuttles his entire argument at about 6.22 where he says: "It's not just the equipment; it's what you do with it."
To be fair, I don't think he was intending to deliver a lesson in formal logic, but merely strolling round his own ideas, experiences and preferences.
Click to expand...

I can imagine a similar argument in 5 years in which the "old timers" argue, My digital image taken on my 100mpix iPhone23 and post processed in Lightroom or GIMP is better than this newfangled garbage being produced by ChatGPT ...

All of us are subject to the gravitational pull of atavism and familiarity ...
 
David M said:
That's a very kind interpretation, but he does seem to be saying that wet prints are better, because of the effort and time put into them.
As for pleasure, he begins with the smell of leather and the handling of finely-engineered equipment. I happen to agree, but these opening remarks scotch the hypothesis of more effort producing more pleasure. He is a mere spectator of the leather, and he has made no contribution at all to the fine engineering.
As mentioned above, the corollary is that if silver-gelatin is better than digital, because of the effort, then collodion is in turn better and the Daguerreotype better still, because of the tremendous effort needed to polish and clean the plate. There's a greater risk to your health too. I can't speak for the effort needed with Bitumen of Judea.
Finally, he scuttles his entire argument at about 6.22 where he says: "It's not just the equipment; it's what you do with it."
To be fair, I don't think he was intending to deliver a lesson in formal logic, but merely strolling round his own ideas, experiences and preferences.
Click to expand...
I was in a hospital waiting room yesterday. A young woman was going around with her cellphone shooting door knobs, signs, and other little objects for whatever reason. So I motioned her over to me and told her I still shoot film. She seem impressed., "Wow. Film."

Considering this is a film site, maybe we should give the YouTuber a break for his enthusiasm?
 
Firstly, I hope your hospital visit turned out well.
And next, we must congratulate the young woman on seeking out new subjects. A tricky thing to do with LF in a waiting room. She used the appropriate means. Image-making is image-making, whatever the kit.

A brief return to Mr Sanderson…
He says that when he sees a large colour print, he thinks: “They have more money than me.” It’s entirely possible that the phone cost more than a large format camera. What are we to make of that?
 
My opinion is that I shoot LF for the image size and quality of the negative/transparency. And I do love the process of setting up and using an LF camera because it is, usually, a slower, more considered, process.

But…

I have taken an LF shot in less than ten minutes and also one in more than two hours.

I have taken digital shots in an instant but that was just a grab shot. I have also taken a couple of hours to take a digital image, taking into consideration how I want the final image to turn out and, thus, taking the time to consider framing, depth of field, focusing distance, composition, etc.

But then I use my Nikon D850 in manual mode with back button focusing - something which totally changed how I approach digital photography, in that it separates the focusing process from the taking process. If I ever need critical focusing on depth of field, I can use focus peaking on the rear screen.

I also took the time to determine where the dynamic range on my sensor starts and ends and take advantage of that knowledge to accurately place the exposure to ensure that the highlights never blow - sort of a reverse zone system. I can now guarantee that I never (well hardly ever) get blown highlights, just as, for LF work, I can guarantee not to block shadows.

I also use graduated filters on the D850 to help with bringing any dynamic range, outside of the 14.6 stops the sensor has, into range.

No I don't have the "joy" of wet developing film but the same skill it takes to expose and develop for HDR shots is just as necessary for digital cameras. But, of course, I can also do that with my LF camera.

But there comes a point where both film and digital photography converge - scanning LF gives a digital file and digital shots do the same.

I don't have the "luxury" of being able to spend loads of money on test strips and prints in a house that cannot accommodate an LF enlarger. Instead, for LF work, I scan the neg and then process it in PhotoLab. That then gives me the choice of being able to adjust the final rendering without spending out on materials and chemistry and even print a test on my Canon A2 printer.

Whether the shot was film or digital now becomes irrelevant because, for the final print, I send the file away to a lab that has a Lambda printer, who create a silver gelatine print, which I defy anyone to see if they can tell the difference from a print generated from film.

Either way - film or digital, my photography takes the same time and consideration. As they say, it's not the equipment that makes the picture, it's the photographer.

Finally, if I could buy a 5" x 4" digital back that wasn't scanning, I would do so in a heartbeat (as long as it didn't cost too much)
 
David M said:
Firstly, I hope your hospital visit turned out well.
And next, we must congratulate the young woman on seeking out new subjects. A tricky thing to do with LF in a waiting room. She used the appropriate means. Image-making is image-making, whatever the kit.

A brief return to Mr Sanderson…
He says that when he sees a large colour print, he thinks: “They have more money than me.” It’s entirely possible that the phone cost more than a large format camera. What are we to make of that?
Click to expand...

It's funny, I have found that there is a certain component of the human experience that is just sure if we had more/better/expensive/high end equipment, we'd get better results. I've personally experienced this in woodworking, photography, music, target shooting ... etc. But the truth is rather different, isn't it? If you want to see a stunned face, show a Leica owner with thousands invested in body and glass a comparison of their negative and one made on a $200 USD Mamiya TLR or 645 family. The Leica inarguably has far better glass, but the difference in negative size makes that more-or-less irrelevant (most of the time, under usual shooting circumstances, etc.)

I learned the lesson of "technique over toys" early on when I worked for a master carpenter as a kid. He measured minimally, used a small but very well understood set of tools, and was very efficient in how he made cuts so as to minimize waste. He also moved with great efficiency so as to not retrace steps unnecessarily. Some 50 years later, those lessons remain with me.

I think this is probably why - like many here - I delight in resurrecting old, unwanted cameras and making them produce lovely images. It's a wonderful combination of the mechanical/woodworking skills, photographic technique, and efficient reuse of something that would otherwise be discarded. Instead of trying to buy my way to better results, I strive to build my way in ...
 
thronobulax said:
It's funny, I have found that there is a certain component of the human experience that is just sure if we had more/better/expensive/high end equipment, we'd get better results. I've personally experienced this in woodworking, photography, music, target shooting ... etc. But the truth is rather different, isn't it? If you want to see a stunned face, show a Leica owner with thousands invested in body and glass a comparison of their negative and one made on a $200 USD Mamiya TLR or 645 family. The Leica inarguably has far better glass, but the difference in negative size makes that more-or-less irrelevant (most of the time, under usual shooting circumstances, etc.)

I learned the lesson of "technique over toys" early on when I worked for a master carpenter as a kid. He measured minimally, used a small but very well understood set of tools, and was very efficient in how he made cuts so as to minimize waste. He also moved with great efficiency so as to not retrace steps unnecessarily. Some 50 years later, those lessons remain with me.

I think this is probably why - like many here - I delight in resurrecting old, unwanted cameras and making them produce lovely images. It's a wonderful combination of the mechanical/woodworking skills, photographic technique, and efficient reuse of something that would otherwise be discarded. Instead of trying to buy my way to better results, I strive to build my way in ...
Click to expand...
You're arguing the same point others have argued that the equipment makes the difference. You're just using a different standard other than higher price.
 
Equipment does make a difference. Fine work demands fine tools, plus the skill to use them. Some tasks are impossible without specialised and expensive eqiuipment – things like Leica lenses, for instance.
What happens when we use tools is that the skill-sets moves backwards along the path of production. So, a skilled person makes a plane and a carpenter can smooth wood more easily and precisely and with much less dexterity than before. And so on. The total amount of skill involved increases.
 
Alan Klein said:
You're arguing the same point others have argued that the equipment makes the difference. You're just using a different standard other than higher price.
Click to expand...

I think tools can make a difference, certainly. There is a wealth of distance between the quality of, say, an Instamatic 127 negative and an 8x10 negative, for example. What I don't accept that the price of the tool inherently is a predictor of better outcomes. I spent a summer working for a pro who was teaching children photography. They shot with the aforementioned Instamatics and the horrid plastic optics associated with those cameras. But some of the work those kids did was just stunning. It was compelling irrespective of the technical limitations of the camera.

I've come through a rather long arc in my thinking about this over 50+ years of photography. When I first started in my teens, I thought equipment made all the difference. You HAD to have a Nikon/Leica/Hasselblad/Sinar to do high quality work. Then I morphed into believing that it was ALL about your vision and that equipment didn't much matter. I eventually reached my current understanding that equipment can- and does matter, but it's not a direct function of cost or sophistication. It's about finding the right tool for the right job and bolting your vision onto that. That's why I don't make 20x24 inch prints from 35mm negatives and I don't shoot live action sports with a view camera. YMMV

As an aside, one of my ongoing projects is to go back through every sheet of negatives I own and reprint the ones I care about the most into 8x10 workbooks. This covers everything from 35mm Nikon around 1970 through 6x6, 645, 6x9, and 5x4 with a rather large range of cameras and optics. I discovered that my development as a silver printer over the decades has way more to do with how "good" the images look than negative format or optics. I am reprinting work from 30 years ago I never much liked and finding new and - occasionally - wonderful images that get revealed because of improved darkroom technique, better processing control, variable contrast split printing and so on.

A parallel pet project - just finished - was to reaquire every camera I ever owned in the exact model/color/lens combination I originally used. This is feasible because so many of these are dirt cheap in camera shops and on eBay but it still took the better part of 10 years. I didn't need them to be cosmetically perfect, but to be functional (or made to be so). It's been a real joy finding, fixing, and using these old friends. Call it an old man's trip down memory lane, but it's really been fun ...
 
David M said:
Equipment does make a difference. Fine work demands fine tools, plus the skill to use them. Some tasks are impossible without specialised and expensive eqiuipment – things like Leica lenses, for instance.
What happens when we use tools is that the skill-sets moves backwards along the path of production. So, a skilled person makes a plane and a carpenter can smooth wood more easily and precisely and with much less dexterity than before. And so on. The total amount of skill involved increases.
Click to expand...

Some years ago a photographer, highly educated, wanted a lens that gave an old-fashioned look. I said OK of all the photographs on my walls which were shot with an old lens, she went to an image from Barcelona, of the
Sagrada Familia, made with a 1960s Yashicamat 124, I'd used differential focus to place the cathedral and cranes out of focus, focussing on a tree in front of the cathedral instead.


What is a fine tool, is that the 12"x10" camera and RR lens used to shoot my Grand-parent's wedding in 1910, the 12" 1940 Goerz AM Opt Dagor I use for 10x8 work, or the 1863 f4 Dallmeyer Rapid Portrait Petzval lens I'm just starting to use.

The skill sets only move backwards if you also use Wet Plate, or the non commercial Dry plates now on offer. I have some Agfa APX100 Dry-plates made for Ford.

Reality is if I shot a 10x8 image with a Rapid Rectilinear lens, my 12" Dagor (coated post WWII), or a modern Plasmat like a 300 mm Symmar or Nikkor, all would produce high quality negatives, unless substantially enlarged.

I found the video showing someone at a crossroads, even the title "A Dying Eye", other writings seem to be similar.

Ian
 
I think I’ve expressed my suggestion of skills moving backwards rather badly. I didn’t mean backwards in history towards older processes.
When we use tools, we are using the skills of the person who made them. They, in turn are using the skills of others. Consider a simple chain of events. You cut a slice of bread, very neatly. You couldn’t do this with your bare hands so the knife has given you powers that are not your own. The knife was made by someone, but they couldn’t have done it without the steel. This was made by another person, using skills that the knife-maker didn’t possess and the steel-maker depended on someone else digging ores from the ground.
Thus, we have a long chain of skills, all contributing to your slice of bread. A similar chain of skills radiates from that bread, to meet on your plate. We all carry the burden of all this talent quite unthinkingly.
Each stage in the process is intended to make the next one easier. The last stage may even appear to be effortless.
 
Last edited:
I watched this on a day when I was struggling with an, admittedly fragrant, example of wood and leather C19th
photographic technology. Those early phographers had amazing skills and were dreaming of our simpler-to-use cameras.

Then I switched the music back to soothing Bach and reflected again.

The train of thought in the video suggests that Bach was somehow better than Beethoven because Bach did not have a piano. We would have lost a great deal without Bach's Harpsichord works and maybe Beethoven needed to 'stand on Bach's shoulders' to write his piano pieces.

Great discussion here; I hope similar conversations are happening at Leeds Becket Northern Film school.

Wendy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top