Discussion in 'Technical threads' started by billowens, Sep 22, 2016.

  1. My attempt at a taxonomy, after hearing Ade's Fuji-Fuji-Epson-Mac workflow brought up again (and him teased about it, naturally).

    Pure analog:
    • silver-based film in a camera -> film developing -> contact or enlarger print onto silver-based photo paper -> paper developing -> showing people your picture
    • instant film in a camera -> self developing -> showing people your picture
    • other similar processes (slide film, direct positive paper, wet plate collodion, Daguerreotype, etc.)
    Pure digital:
    • digital camera -> some sort of computer -> showing people your picture
    Somewhere in between:
    • everything else

    IMO, if you scan your film negatives (or slides or prints) or rephotograph them with a digital camera, then you're into a hybrid workflow. But if you don't do that, you can only show people who you meet in person, and how boring is that? Likewise if you take your digital image and print it, either with an inkjet or a photo paper printer, you've made an analog copy. But if you don't do that you have nothing tangible to hand to someone or hang on your wall.

    I don't see any sensible way to sort the various workflows into 'more analog' and 'more digital' because there's no way to score or balance the different parts. And you know what? It's all good as long as we're happy with the results.
    moroseduck likes this.
  2. I couldn't agree more. It's bizarre how you frequently see communities which are already suffering from external pressures try and divide themselves up internally as well.

    I think part of the problem is plain old elitism and the hipster thing of it being cooler the fewer people who are doing it. Fact of the matter is that none of the process matters except to the individual doing it, it's only the results that mean anything to the outside world. Film or digital or a weird ******* lovechild of the two, it's about finding the path to unleash your own creativity, and anyone who tells you you're doing it wrong should go boil their heads.

    Much though I may want all the film cameras for myself, the more people that shoot film, even if just for a bit of occasional fun, the better it is for all of us.
    Obi Col Kenobi likes this.
  3. Seems we're finding some unquantifiable distinctions. I have a new thing to ponder though now I have bought an instant camera. If I take a photo and give it away to someone - what then? I could build a whole body of work that is entirely spread to the four corners of the world and that I have no copy of.

    Should I be worried about my photographic legacy? Not really because I have a hard drive with tens of thousands of photos on it.

    Might I be missing some of my better work? Yep, but I'm never going to notice one go missing and hopefully my photos are being enjoyed by people.

    My mission impossible: relax! :Zombie_sleeping:
  4. I never thought of the fact that you only get one Instax print, and once it's gone, that's forever. It's a bit like wet-plate or Daguerreotype in that respect, there's no way to make an exact copy. It would make me want to take a snap of each photo with my phone before handing it over!

    I suppose there's a weaker analogy to conventional prints, because each one of those is likely to be just a little different, or possibly a lot if you're into dodging/burning/etc. I've heard of the Great Photographers making many prints from a negative but considering just one to be the actual picture, the one that gets hung in the gallery and reproduced in the coffee-table books. It might be difficult or impossible to recreate, even if you still have the negative.

Share This Page