It's not just a "zen" thing

**monochrome** · 09-13-2015, 07:31 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by arnold

It is the journey, not the destination.

Some people take Interstate 44, stay at the LumpyMattress Inn and think the free donut is a deal. Some people take Route 66, sleep in a tent, eat at Ma's Diner and take extra time getting 'there'.

I'll do either, as the circumstances call for, but Route 66 is certainly more eenjoyable.

Eyewanders · 09-13-2015, 08:14 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

Some people take Interstate 44, stay at the LumpyMattress Inn and think the free donut is a deal. Some people take Route 66, sleep in a tent, eat at Ma's Diner and take extra time getting 'there'.

I'll do either, as the circumstances call for, but Route 66 is certainly more enjoyable.

Zing! Pow! Bam! Nutshelled.

This has, as I kinda feared it would, turned into another quasi film vs digital thread.... But I think for me it's just a process thread - which has bee brought up a number of times here - it really is the journey - and the further down the photo-road I travel I find myself more and more interested in and fascinated by working with older, simpler (even if slightly idiosyncratic) systems. "In structure there is more freedom" a drama professor once told me and I think this falls into that argument. Older, simpler, practical designs in a rigid structure that you must learn to work within and bend to your aim creates a special level of focused craft.

Again, I'm not hating - I still use and have used digital for a decade and consider myself quite proficient and have been a part-time semi pro off and on during that time. I like digital, quite a bit a lot of the time... but I don't love it and I'm not sure I ever will for reasons that are nearly impossible to quantify. I absolutely get why so many people do love it - I just don't. No biggie.

Nesster · 09-15-2015, 05:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by chickentender

Older, simpler, practical designs in a rigid structure that you must learn to work within and bend to your aim creates a special level of focused craft.

This is exactly the 'third element' found in poetry and the blues and other arts where one creates within specific limitations or structures. I find it pulls out unexpected things from me, sometimes very surprising, as I work to solve problems of form or structure.

---------- Post added 09-15-2015 at 08:54 AM ----------

Originally posted by wdsbhb

With digital, l have control over every aspect of the process. So images look like l want them to look

True, more control IS possible, and digital definitely fixes many of the things we used to hate about film. It is more reliable and so on.

And yet, overall, don't the majority of images we see end up falling into some specific looks or formats? And isn't there a sameness; often what we want them to look like is the look of a specific type of image? So not really different from film, except the 'average' is higher and the problems to be solved are different than with simple film equipment.

wdsbhb · 09-15-2015, 10:55 AM

Hard to make images like this without photoshop.

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/19958487978/

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/20146583525/

Last edited by wdsbhb; 09-15-2015 at 03:15 PM.

LesDMess · 09-15-2015, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by wdsbhb

I don't get it. With digital, l have control over every aspect of the process. So images look like l want them to look. Unless you were developing your own film, you were trusting parts of the process to the vision and talents of other people. Why would l want to do that? To me, photography doesn't end when l press the shutter release.

Originally posted by wdsbhb

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/20146583525/
Hard to make images like this without photoshop.

If by this photo you meant the vignetting? If nobody else has told you this, you don't need PS to accomplish that as there are many ways to add this effect even during the time of capture sometimes accidentally - or even on purpose, by using the wrong lens hood . . .

BTW, I am not sure if you are joking or not and you have some nice images on your flickr account.

Eyewanders · 09-15-2015, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by LesDMess

If by this photo you meant the vignetting? If nobody else has told you this, you don't need PS to accomplish that as there are many ways to add this effect even during the time of capture sometimes accidentally - or even on purpose, by using the wrong lens hood . . .

BTW, I am not sure if you are joking or not and you have some nice images on your flickr account.

I read that post and looked at that photo and said out loud "challenge accepted!" ... Not really difficult at all. In fact, I can go into the other room right now, grab a DA21, slap it on ANY of my 35mm bodies and shoot the same image. Or a myriads of other combinations.

LesDMess · 09-15-2015, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by wdsbhb

Hard to make images like this without photoshop.

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/19958487978/

I see that you added a new image to go with the quote. Yet again it is not an image that needs PS either. Clearly a simple high key and print toning is all. Perhaps one of those purposely purple Lomo films can even do this?

Maybe what you really meant to say is that it is hard for you personally to make images like this without PS?

For myself, below is my own example of what I have used PS for with my film scans.

I suppose I can't say it's impossible to make this image without PS but it was convenient for me to put all three planes on the same frame. I've seen it on a back issue of Modern Photography magazine where they took more than one slide superimposed together to create a composite.

wdsbhb · 09-15-2015, 08:22 PM

I attempted to add them both previously, but was unsuccesful. But, you could be right, maybe l just use ps to mask my lack of skills and l should simply leave the hobby to the pros.

LesDMess · 09-15-2015, 11:49 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by wdsbhb

I attempted to add them both previously, but was unsuccesful. But, you could be right, maybe l just use ps to mask my lack of skills and l should simply leave the hobby to the pros.

It's a fine thing to learn something new and put it to good use. There are many folks here at various levels of knowledge willing to help and that's what makes it a great community.

wdsbhb · 09-16-2015, 05:31 AM

My point was simply that ps makes many things easier/more accessable for those of us who don't have access to large sums of cash. Maybe you can achieve just as good/better results working with your developer, or if you choose to spend the cash on developing it yourself. PS just gives us access to those same tools at a reduced price. It's just another tool to me. And ultimately, l am the one who has to be satisfied with my results.

mohb · 09-16-2015, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by wdsbhb

My point was simply that ps makes many things easier/more accessable for those of us who don't have access to large sums of cash

You don't need large sums of cash just a lot of time and patience

, digital makes it a lot easier to experiment either in PP or in trying out new photographic techniques or styles.

Nesster · 09-16-2015, 06:25 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by mohb

You don't need large sums of cash just a lot of time and patience

, digital makes it a lot easier to experiment either in PP or in trying out new photographic techniques or styles.

True that. But time is money and the wet darkroom is a time hog, even when you are in practice and get efficient in processing for the effects you want --- with PS it's three or four clicks of the mouse...

LesDMess · 09-16-2015, 07:46 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by wdsbhb

My point was simply that ps makes many things easier/more accessable for those of us who don't have access to large sums of cash.

Far be it for me to frown upon the use of post processing tools since I have used PS since it's release. I simply had to refute your initial premise that it was the only recourse or required large sums of cash.

**arnold** · 09-16-2015, 05:10 PM - **3 Likes**

There is another aspect (in addition to previous comments) to the psychology involved in the type of camera used. It is associated in particular with film photos associated with personal memories. Film has a material presence that electrons don't have. Thus one holds the actual film that faced the subject, and was bombarded with photons that bounced off the subject being photographed. A photon that bounced of a long-gone loved one, embedded into the emulsion you now hold in your hand. Of course, none of this is arguing about the differing quality, economics and utility in using digital versus film. Only claiming a certain psychological satisfaction unique to film.

mee · 09-16-2015, 06:51 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by monochrome

I believe there's more to life than clinically ranking image sharpness according to some scale and proclaiming the newest iteration of some device better than its competing brand.

I agree.

Originally posted by monochrome

I get to define my good, not someone else - so I get to define my best. And I like it that way.

I also agree. Where I disagree is what that 'good' and that 'best' are; We have different definitions of these terms in the context of photography. that is all. We are much more alike photographically than I think you give credit.

The truth is, though, you can do this with a digital camera too.. just switch it to manual, disable the autofocus, and use a small capacity SD card. Now you have the power of controlling the camera in a limited environment as well as the power of digital. Of course this doesn't resolve the issue of enjoying hanging out in the darkroom... that is a different experience all together.. to see your images revealed before your eyes.

If you find beauty in the flaws of your equipment that is fine.. even if I didn't think it was fine it would still be fine. Because your hobby is your hobby, just as my hobby is my hobby. I get to define what is good and best for me too.

09-16-2015, 05:51 AM	#71
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	Originally posted by wdsbhb My point was simply that ps makes many things easier/more accessable for those of us who don't have access to large sums of cash You don't need large sums of cash just a lot of time and patience, digital makes it a lot easier to experiment either in PP or in trying out new photographic techniques or styles.

09-16-2015, 06:25 AM - 2 Likes	#72
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by mohb You don't need large sums of cash just a lot of time and patience, digital makes it a lot easier to experiment either in PP or in trying out new photographic techniques or styles. True that. But time is money and the wet darkroom is a time hog, even when you are in practice and get efficient in processing for the effects you want --- with PS it's three or four clicks of the mouse...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
My K-5 is "clunking", but it's not turned on. Link to video inside.	Nomadic Zen	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	06-11-2015 07:37 AM
"Let's Just Say It"	jsherman999	General Talk	26	06-05-2012 01:09 PM
Help - Spots "They" Say it's not on the Sensor	daacon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	36	09-17-2009 08:32 PM
"It's not the camera"... except when it is	shuttervox	General Talk	45	02-24-2009 04:40 AM

09-13-2015, 07:31 PM - 2 Likes	#61
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by arnold It is the journey, not the destination. Some people take Interstate 44, stay at the LumpyMattress Inn and think the free donut is a deal. Some people take Route 66, sleep in a tent, eat at Ma's Diner and take extra time getting 'there'. I'll do either, as the circumstances call for, but Route 66 is certainly more eenjoyable.

09-13-2015, 08:14 PM - 1 Like	#62
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343 Original Poster	Originally posted by monochrome Some people take Interstate 44, stay at the LumpyMattress Inn and think the free donut is a deal. Some people take Route 66, sleep in a tent, eat at Ma's Diner and take extra time getting 'there'. I'll do either, as the circumstances call for, but Route 66 is certainly more enjoyable. Zing! Pow! Bam! Nutshelled. This has, as I kinda feared it would, turned into another quasi film vs digital thread.... But I think for me it's just a process thread - which has bee brought up a number of times here - it really is the journey - and the further down the photo-road I travel I find myself more and more interested in and fascinated by working with older, simpler (even if slightly idiosyncratic) systems. "In structure there is more freedom" a drama professor once told me and I think this falls into that argument. Older, simpler, practical designs in a rigid structure that you must learn to work within and bend to your aim creates a special level of focused craft. Again, I'm not hating - I still use and have used digital for a decade and consider myself quite proficient and have been a part-time semi pro off and on during that time. I like digital, quite a bit a lot of the time... but I don't love it and I'm not sure I ever will for reasons that are nearly impossible to quantify. I absolutely get why so many people do love it - I just don't. No biggie.

09-15-2015, 05:51 AM - 1 Like	#63
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by chickentender Older, simpler, practical designs in a rigid structure that you must learn to work within and bend to your aim creates a special level of focused craft. This is exactly the 'third element' found in poetry and the blues and other arts where one creates within specific limitations or structures. I find it pulls out unexpected things from me, sometimes very surprising, as I work to solve problems of form or structure. ---------- Post added 09-15-2015 at 08:54 AM ---------- Originally posted by wdsbhb With digital, l have control over every aspect of the process. So images look like l want them to look True, more control IS possible, and digital definitely fixes many of the things we used to hate about film. It is more reliable and so on. And yet, overall, don't the majority of images we see end up falling into some specific looks or formats? And isn't there a sameness; often what we want them to look like is the look of a specific type of image? So not really different from film, except the 'average' is higher and the problems to be solved are different than with simple film equipment.

09-15-2015, 10:55 AM	#64
wdsbhb New Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 5	Hard to make images like this without photoshop. https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/19958487978/ https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/20146583525/ Last edited by wdsbhb; 09-15-2015 at 03:15 PM.

09-15-2015, 12:03 PM	#65
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by wdsbhb I don't get it. With digital, l have control over every aspect of the process. So images look like l want them to look. Unless you were developing your own film, you were trusting parts of the process to the vision and talents of other people. Why would l want to do that? To me, photography doesn't end when l press the shutter release. Originally posted by wdsbhb https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/20146583525/ Hard to make images like this without photoshop. If by this photo you meant the vignetting? If nobody else has told you this, you don't need PS to accomplish that as there are many ways to add this effect even during the time of capture sometimes accidentally - or even on purpose, by using the wrong lens hood . . . BTW, I am not sure if you are joking or not and you have some nice images on your flickr account.

09-15-2015, 01:23 PM	#66
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343 Original Poster	Originally posted by LesDMess If by this photo you meant the vignetting? If nobody else has told you this, you don't need PS to accomplish that as there are many ways to add this effect even during the time of capture sometimes accidentally - or even on purpose, by using the wrong lens hood . . . BTW, I am not sure if you are joking or not and you have some nice images on your flickr account. I read that post and looked at that photo and said out loud "challenge accepted!" ... Not really difficult at all. In fact, I can go into the other room right now, grab a DA21, slap it on ANY of my 35mm bodies and shoot the same image. Or a myriads of other combinations.

09-15-2015, 05:21 PM	#67
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by wdsbhb Hard to make images like this without photoshop. https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/wdsb21/19958487978/ I see that you added a new image to go with the quote. Yet again it is not an image that needs PS either. Clearly a simple high key and print toning is all. Perhaps one of those purposely purple Lomo films can even do this? Maybe what you really meant to say is that it is hard for you personally to make images like this without PS? For myself, below is my own example of what I have used PS for with my film scans. I suppose I can't say it's impossible to make this image without PS but it was convenient for me to put all three planes on the same frame. I've seen it on a back issue of Modern Photography magazine where they took more than one slide superimposed together to create a composite.

09-15-2015, 08:22 PM	#68
wdsbhb New Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 5	I attempted to add them both previously, but was unsuccesful. But, you could be right, maybe l just use ps to mask my lack of skills and l should simply leave the hobby to the pros.

09-15-2015, 11:49 PM - 1 Like	#69
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by wdsbhb I attempted to add them both previously, but was unsuccesful. But, you could be right, maybe l just use ps to mask my lack of skills and l should simply leave the hobby to the pros. It's a fine thing to learn something new and put it to good use. There are many folks here at various levels of knowledge willing to help and that's what makes it a great community.

09-16-2015, 05:31 AM	#70
wdsbhb New Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 5	My point was simply that ps makes many things easier/more accessable for those of us who don't have access to large sums of cash. Maybe you can achieve just as good/better results working with your developer, or if you choose to spend the cash on developing it yourself. PS just gives us access to those same tools at a reduced price. It's just another tool to me. And ultimately, l am the one who has to be satisfied with my results.

09-16-2015, 07:46 AM - 2 Likes	#73
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by wdsbhb My point was simply that ps makes many things easier/more accessable for those of us who don't have access to large sums of cash. Far be it for me to frown upon the use of post processing tools since I have used PS since it's release. I simply had to refute your initial premise that it was the only recourse or required large sums of cash.

09-16-2015, 05:10 PM - 3 Likes	#74
arnold Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,295	There is another aspect (in addition to previous comments) to the psychology involved in the type of camera used. It is associated in particular with film photos associated with personal memories. Film has a material presence that electrons don't have. Thus one holds the actual film that faced the subject, and was bombarded with photons that bounced off the subject being photographed. A photon that bounced of a long-gone loved one, embedded into the emulsion you now hold in your hand. Of course, none of this is arguing about the differing quality, economics and utility in using digital versus film. Only claiming a certain psychological satisfaction unique to film.

09-16-2015, 06:51 PM - 2 Likes	#75
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by monochrome I believe there's more to life than clinically ranking image sharpness according to some scale and proclaiming the newest iteration of some device better than its competing brand. I agree. Originally posted by monochrome I get to define my good, not someone else - so I get to define my best. And I like it that way. I also agree. Where I disagree is what that 'good' and that 'best' are; We have different definitions of these terms in the context of photography. that is all. We are much more alike photographically than I think you give credit. The truth is, though, you can do this with a digital camera too.. just switch it to manual, disable the autofocus, and use a small capacity SD card. Now you have the power of controlling the camera in a limited environment as well as the power of digital. Of course this doesn't resolve the issue of enjoying hanging out in the darkroom... that is a different experience all together.. to see your images revealed before your eyes. If you find beauty in the flaws of your equipment that is fine.. even if I didn't think it was fine it would still be fine. Because your hobby is your hobby, just as my hobby is my hobby. I get to define what is good and best for me too.