Take back

Driving any place – say back from Richmond – gives me time to think. It seems that it is the only place where one can be quiet and not look like there is something wrong.

I noticed to-day that going through the New York Times that one of the things that I look forward to – well obviously after the arts section working at the greatest art school since the Jedi ruled the universe – that just cut everyone’s retirement benefits in half – is the Why We Travel.

I look at it for the Panasonic advert underneath of it. Most of the time it doesn’t move me at all but there is this Panasonic/Leica digital camera that causes me to drool. It looks like a real camera.

Earlier in the week I was playing web tag – going from site to site via links and came upon a Nikon SP 2005 all black. Now that was a camera. The Zeiß Ikon clones always beat out the Leica clones in their manliness and bare bones functionality. Leicas are Beemers, whereas Zeiß were true Range Rovers before soccer moms with attitudes took them over.

Because of my recent doubts about processes chemical, I was wondering what these two cameras had in common. It was the fact that they made me feel – rightly or wrongly like I was in control albeit the Panasonic did it by shape and less toggle switches than one sees to-day.

This brought me back to why I still use film with the problems of no one recognising what it is or the differences.

I recognise the differences. This came from meeting a poor misguided M.F.A. in writing candidate who wants and likes to use pinhole, plastic, primitive and past dated cameras. For the past 15 weeks I have been trying to talk her out of it but she persists.

Even though she would be assured of a result if she would just choose something digital – and the money she has spent on cheap cameras could have bought her a decent digital SLR – even though after returning from one trip to Texas – why does everyone seem to live in Texas? – half the images were less than ideal due to mistakes on her part? Even though plastic cameras are so trendy that they can be bought in Urban Outfitters and Restoration Hardware – like the only people who can afford to use Leicas are doctors and lawyers - does she insist on using them?

It is the variety. Smelly, Parkinson’s causing, land and water polluting, anti-social behaviour fostering wet photography simply has more options. By the way all the remedies that digital photography supposedly offers by being “clean” simply transfers all those problems to countries that we really don’t care about anyway.

For fear of entering the world of geekdom yet again does anyone really get excited arguing over which storage media is better

- I cannot live without San Disk? The subtle greys,

- What are you crazy? PNY is the tops! You cannot beat the tonality I get with it.

For decades despite the industry trying to do otherwise, it was the vagarities of film, paper, all the stuff that could be modified and mishandled that allowed for a richer photographic vocabulary.

Admittedly the big three – if there are still three – are pretty much the same but it is in the cheapness, the budget find, the Fomas, Orwos, and EFKEs of the world that individuality doesn’t flourish – that should still be in the maker and the vision – but where it is tailored to best suit what one wants to say.

Grain is a great tool, “Backwards” technology allows us to make use of that tool by giving us options and while I probably wouldn’t be able to tell true grain from the Photoshop grain filter, the person who made could. By changing developer, times etc I can modify the grain. What difference will there be in switching my smart media card should I use a compact flash for the Afgapan in Dektol effect? If I put a Kodak SM card in a Polaroid will i get cross processed images? How does one mess up creatively with a Memory Stick? And while photographic paper may be different as there seems to be a great many options – legit and forced – in inkjet papers, it is precisely those options that make process better suited for the syntax of the final print.

Ironic the mantra in art schools from coast to coast to coast is that there is no photographic truth but now there is a lemming like drive to standardisation to make all photographs look like…photographs that we used to believe never lied.

A cheap digital camera – is just that, it simply doesn’t have the pixel resolving power, it is not a “flawed” lens, a wonky shutter - can "wonky be used at all when talking digital - a sweet spot of focus it is simply pixilation when the image is enlarged – which isn’t grain – it doesn’t have the personality of grain it doesn't clump, it isn't random and while it will add something to the lexicon of options for photography it is a poor return on money invested. Lensbabies on digital camera is photographic slumming at it best.

Where are the Lubitels of the digital world?

So “how does one justify going through some long, drawn-out, expensive process when one can arrive at the (mostly?) same thing via a system of 0’s and 1’s??” for fear of being sued Ian MacEwen—like for plagerism this comes from a comment by R.Y. in Crisis of Faith.

Simple first the key lies in the “mostly”. For the most part digital photography is trying to imitate photography. It is like Microsoft a job well done but no real creativity of its own what-so-ever there are hints at digital building up it own syntax but for the most part it is trying to be a easier way to make what people used to do.

19^th century doubters would have a field day with the new photography, if they thought photography was easy then…

Another reason is because you like the craft, you relish the time alone when you cannot multitask. You welcome the serendipitous.

Take driving I can get from- say- Richmond to Baltimore via I-95, in doing so I can drive my good old Saturn with an automatic gear box and make it in the same time that I could using a Manual gear boxed Mazda Miata.

I could also take the old U.S 1. The outcome would be the same, the experience for me would be different. One trip four options.

I know craft is a dirty word as I was looking at the website of a university in Virginia with its world renown art department. I went to the Fibre site only to find it under the Craft heading. Tsk tsk tsk. I know that we are supposed to be professional cynical and detached even more so at Conceptual Central on Lake Michigan.

While I still feel a sense of accomplishment from a well made book of wander or a series of postcards that could only be done (reasonably) using digital output, I still feel more of a sense of accomplishment having been in the dark for a while or judging the exposure from the sun and when i should make that last print of the day. I like the risk in using Lucky Film and the antipicpation of the results. I want to see if there is a difference with Fotokemika Varykon. I know that photographs aren't real - or are only real as photographs - so I can fly down to Rio with a couple of Dianas and Fomapan 400.

I see all this as the photographic version of word choice and placement. My problem with how others saw platinotypes is valid but I forgot myself in the process. I like making them. I like the limitations. It just could be that people prefer the inkjets to my platinotypes are because mine aren’t good enough yet. Rather than give up, I should get better.

She was correct to be stubborn and take my photographic anti-primitivism tirades for it best suits her work who cares if there are forest loads of wasted paper with clichés using the same techniques. Danielle Steele uses the same language as Arundhati Roy, should she give up English and start writing in one of the many languages of India because of this?

I was wrong to stop because Holgas can be bought so that ICP members can show their hipness with them. I still think that I should dust off the Dianas and film some Russian film and head out again – bad shutters can only improve Dianas.

Right now though, I just saw this Rolleiflex 4.0 FW which would be sooo cool with some Arista.edu ultra 400 with its deep blue base.