Making it old

<p>Why? Why do people spend hours and hours making their digital images look old? To what benefit? Does it hark back to Pictorialism? Can you imagine when these images are old our children's children will presume that digital image 'were crap back then'. Are we not modern? Should we not try to get the most accurate/sharpest/well exposed images as we can? Or is it just a case of 'I can so I will', without worrying about what they create - after all we live in a throw away society where image are 100 or penny? ( I can see another question forming in my mind as I write this.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are we not modern?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Should we not try to get the most accurate/sharpest/well exposed images as we can?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. We should try to get our images to look however we want them to look.</p>

<p>Stephen, don't think "old,"; think "relationship,"; think "touch," think "entanglement," "web," connectedness, etc., etc. Those "old" marks are the signs of how those pictured things, or the picture itself was handled, touched; participated in ...</p>

<p>Also see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi">Wabi Sabi</a>.</p>

<p>No more time than is spent making images artificially perfect. What's the motivation for that?</p>

<p><em>Why? Why do people spend hours and hours making their digital images look old?</em></p>

<p>Why do people ask questions like this? Photography is a <strong>creative medium.</strong> Explore and use any and every look you want via any and every tool you want. Darkroom, Photoshop, digital, film, plugins, action scripts, papers, alternative processes, pro lenses, Holgas, modern, classic, old, new, accurate color, saturated color, dreamy color, B&W, whatever. Just do it.</p>

<p>"Why? Why do people spend hours and hours making their digital images look old? To what benefit?"</p>

<p>Because that's the way they want them to look like. I digitally tone a lot of my B&W, and it's not to "make it look old" or anything else, besides the way I want it to look.</p>

<p>"Does it hark back to Pictorialism?"</p>

<p>It can, but I would bet most of the time, no. Digital has a lot in common with Pictorialism, particularly many of the uses of PS that we often see. I have often referred to it as "Neo Pictorialism".</p>

<p>"Can you imagine when these images are old our children's children will presume that digital image 'were crap back then'."</p>

<p>Only the uneducated will think that. Connoisseurs will know better. Besides, what will our children's children be viewing them on?</p>

<p>"Are we not modern?"</p>

<p>No. "We" aren't any one thing. What we are is free to see in our own way, and the hardware and software reflects this. Even cheap P&S cameras offer controls that 85% of their users will never activate. Photography is not a chorus line, we do not have to kick our heels in unison. We never did, really, and in photography when we came close to doing so, things were a little boring. There is no one "Modern" way things should look. Uniformity may be desirable or comfortable to you, but it's not for everyone.</p>

<p>"Should we not try to get the most accurate/sharpest/well exposed images as we can?"</p>

<p>NO. That POV is extremely popular with people who want to create photographs that fulfill the (non-existent) requirements of signifiers within the medium, and/or are enslaved to the equipment side, always poring over MTF charts, shooting test targets, anxious over the way things should be as opposed to the way one wants them to be. Conformity. Worse, locked into what the camera manufacturers want you to be.</p>

<p>"Or is it just a case of 'I can so I will', without worrying about what they create - after all we live in a throw away society where image are 100 or penny? ( I can see another question forming in my mind as I write this.)"</p>

<p>Here you are putting down people who do not think like you. They don't care, they don't think, disposable, etc. It's OK not to think in unison. If you find comfort in doing that, fine. Do it. But the world and others vary.</p>

<p>If photography has rules as put forth in the OP, and clear, universal goals, then it would only be a game and nothing more.</p>

<p>Your own photographs posted in your portfolio are primarily B&W. Why? The world exists in color so B&W is not an accurate representation of the world. Even if you are color blind you can still distinguish some color. Did you do it for some artistic reason? Just because you liked it? To imitate someone like Ansel Adams? Whatever your answer, those are the same reasons why someone would shoot Velvia for over the top color or blur parts of images or overexpose for a "high key" effect.</p>

<p>I think I understand what you mean, Stephen. I do sense that many are using digital to mimic film, wanting it to "be just like" or "be just as good as" film. Many discussions on PN center around photographers bemoaning the fact (as a reason to dislike digital) that digital doesn't look exactly like film, that they can see a difference. Defenders of digital will often say "You can't tell the difference." "Digital looks just like film." Why are they invested in this?</p>

<p>Some day, we will let go of these kinds of discussions and embrace the unique characteristics that digital brings us. Some may embrace things like its ability to produce tack sharp pictures. Some will embrace the new and nifty presentation methods digital has brought us, which go under explored. (After all, look at how limited we are in our methods of presentation on PN . . . the awful light gray background that intrudes its reflective light washing out our photos, with no alternatives offered on the site itself unless you create your own individual web site.) I go to a lot of galleries and many people are displaying their work in all kinds of formats that would have been impossible years ago.</p>

<p>So we really don't have to wait for some day. Some people are already moving on. An iPhone esthetic is already starting to develop, much like a Polaroid esthetic did once people stopped trying to make 4x5-like photos with Polaroids. I see much digital work, particularly in local galleries that IS NOT trying to look old or like film, but I think it's still rare as the dinosaurs tend to rule the roost until new visions are adopted. We encounter many of the dinosaurs in the incessant PN chatter about tools and the endless digital-film debates. Meanwhile the world of photography is moving forward.</p>

<p>There will always be an influence of "old" ways of doing photography on new technologies and methods. The history of photography (and art) is a dialogue throughout the ages, complete with influence, homage, and breaking away. It all goes into the mix. There is continuity, overlap, and distinction from era to era. Though we often tend to be sheep, we don't have to be. There will always be someone who nudges things forward or breaks into a trot out ahead of the pack. But even that visionary will probably have a strong understanding of the past and will probably have dabbled in it or more likely even been immersed in it for some period before taking off.</p>

"Should we not try to get the most accurate/sharpest/well exposed images as we can?"

 

Who do you work for, man! The marketing dept of Japan Camera, Inc?

I've noticed the past three or so years, an interest among young photographers -- young teens -- exploring non-pr hype photography. Toy cameras, cell phone cameras, still captures from laptop cameras, I think, are probably the most common experience they have with photography. It is also possible that youth, as it sometimes does, simply rejects the values of their parents and explore alternatives, even opposites, just because. So, welcome to Seniors City.

 

There is nothing more sterile and dismaying than the professional images preferred by the marketing deptartment. I'll give the young credit for recognizing that and doing something else.

<p>The aesthetic of the imperfect that was mentioned above (thanks for an insight into Wabi Sabi) and the very rational arguments of some for a "why not" response to your question, including the statement that whatever approach fits the creative objective of the photographer is valid, are sufficient reasons for me to also respond to your questions "why not?"</p>

<p>Putting constraints on visual expression is to me a non-productive approach. I do have some trouble with highly overblown colours and contrasts of some photoshopped images I see, but I don't question the right of the photographer to handle his subject matter entirely as he sees fit. That has always been the benchmark of art, whether the approach is highly original, whether it is limited by the techniques of the time (the look of many nineteenth century photographs were affected by long exposure times and lenses that had yet to benefit from the later correction of many optical aberrations) or whether it fits into some movement of the period. The force and beauty of some cave drawings of animals and the boldness of their black strokes can inspire some artists even 20,000 years later.</p>

<p>CBC ran Villeneuve's 2009 film "Polytechnique" Sunday evening. The choice of black and white for the filming may be considered by some as outdated technology, but that medum and the restrained use of dialogue fitted very well the sensitive re-enactment of the events of the December 1989 Montreal massacre and how it affected those concerned. The use of the older monochromatic medium well fitted the subject. The apt use of symbolism and irony were made more effective than colour by the stark black and white medium (In one scene, an aerial view of the river, one of the male students drives to his rural home for Christmas along the river road, alongside crazy patterns of broken up islands of river ice and his lonely observation of this somewhat bizarre winter nature, before he directs the exhaust by hose back into his parked car, his suicide being a personal conclusion of his inability to have done more to stop the murder of so many of his female classmates). Other directors have also used the old fashioned medium of black and white as an artistic tool. Why not?</p>

>>> Are we not modern?

 

We are Devo.

<p>While I certainly agree with Luis and Arthur that we are and should be free to create photos in our own way (though how free we are is questionable since we are to at least some extent determined by where our culture is at the time and the prevailing esthetic does have a strong influence), I also think it's OK to question what "we" are doing in our time, as a group. Didn't Stieglitz do this and didn't it have a profound effect on the course of photographic history and the status of photography as an accepted art form while also having a significant effect on his own work?</p>

<p>So, I think collectively questioning where we're going, what technology allows us, and how to utilize new technologies is an important part of what we do. Moving culture collectively out of the past can be a significant accomplishment, even while ties to the past will never be severed completely. No, I don't think everyone must do this and I don't expect everyone will do this. But I think it's reasonable for some to wonder about the collective vision, which is how I'd like to understand Stephen's question. Photography (whether as an art, a craft, a medium . . . all the things photography is and can be) is as much a dialogue and a community affair as it is an individual undertaking. While I like asserting myself as an individual, and do to the extent I am able and/or wanting to at the time, I also like being a part of something bigger than myself.</p>

<p>I agree with Fred, and I may have misread Steve, but I didn't see what he said as taking stock of the medium. It's a perfectly legitimate question. I saw Steve as clamoring for a "one-mind" approach, questioning divergent views, but Fred's question is fodder for another (potentially huge) thread (please post it).</p>

<p>[since I do not believe in free will, yes, I see all of us as denizens of the hive, even if in different 'hoods of it. Individuality (among other things in the medium) is overrated, IMO.]</p>

One can cling to the past or break new ground. Or anything in between. Do what makes you happy.

<p>Brad, I'm not particularly looking for happiness. Honestly. Making photos doesn't necessarily make me happy, nor would I want it to.</p>

<p>Brad, do you mean the past and/or new ground in a personal sense, in terms of the medium neither, or both?</p>

<p>In spite of the long history and the philosophical persistence of the pursuit of happiness in American history, my photography has little, if anything, to do with that.</p>

Fred, you seem to have chosen the most basic definition of the word "happy." Whatever photography

does (or doesn't do) for you, that's great - it is no concern of mine.

<blockquote>

<p>Whatever photography does (or doesn't do) for you, that's great - it is no concern of mine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like I said, Brad, I have a more cultural/communal view of things. So what others do is a concern of mine. I like feeling a part of something more than just what I do. One of the reasons I gravitate toward this forum is precisely because I am concerned with what others think and do. And I think there is a connectedness among us that can be enriching. I know you do collaborative work and I'm seeking out some partners to do a couple of projects with right now. That moves me away from my own concerns and into some of the concerns of the greater community and culture.</p>

<p>As for happiness, I'm using it as anyone would. Joyful, satisfied, delighted, pleased, contented. Those are things I'm not necessarily looking for when making photographs.</p>

<p>Sometimes, clinging on to the past is breaking new ground. This is not an old/new dichotomy. Part of this, to me, is also the market at work, including marketing, fashion, hype, mainstream opinions and cutting edge avant-garde. And all in between.<br>

Don made a good notion, there does seem to be an increaed interest in 'less-than-perfect' images: Holga, editing as described in the OP, in general B&W (maybe it's me, but there does seem to be more and more B&W on sites as Flickr).<br>

And at the same time, there is an ongoing pursuit of sharper, more saturation, "colours that pop". New cameras all seem to be made to be improving these points (that, and clean ISO 410.000 shots).</p>

<p>Two ends of the spectrum, but to my eye, the two most profoundly present "looks". And so, what the industry (be it hardware, be it software) will happily sell us are tools to deliver this. And of course, to make us want it more, they will make it gain momentum. It is where "because I can" becomes a valid reason for many people.<br>

From there on, it's as already said: technology enabling us to get the image the way we envision it. Large groups will follow a look that might be a temporary fashionable look, as is the nature of masses. There is nothing wrong with that, nor new, nor specific photography related.</p>

<p>Or shorter: what Fred said, but don't underestimate the marketing that runs in between it. It's a third party in the dialogue of what we want and where we want to go.</p>

<p>Wouter, before the Holga, there was the Diana, and it was popular since about the 1970's, if memory serves. It was part of a reactionary movement to the technical fixation (and its attendant signifiers) of the day. These cameras do not "see" in the photographically ideal way, but it is difficult to understand why they are so popular. I knew a successful artist/photographer in Barcelona who often lamented a decade ago that his Holga prints outsold everything else he did at the time. Personally, the attraction of these toy cameras with their distinctive optical signatures is in part, because they are different from photographic conventions, but maybe because they have something in common with the way images are preserved, process, recalled (some of the above, or all of the above) in memory, and no, I have no data, just my idea.</p>

<p>Back to the present, this is not a new or particularly current idea. At one time, some graduate programs required MFAs to have a Diana or Holga before entering the program.</p>

<p>Do it any way you like and don't worry about what others think.</p>

<p>Fred's point about cultural and geographical limitations is good, as is the need (of the example of Stieglitz) to react against certain visual art movements, although I probably wouldn't go so far as the art student in Toronto who went to the AGO and vomited on well-known works that he did not approve of. Why worry about the incursion in one's practice of former photographic movements and techniques if it adds to your abvility to convey what you want to convey? Knowledge and art are based upon an evolution, and we can, like the word and idea vocabulary we have also acquired over many years, make use of whatever seems appropriate to get the job done.</p>

<p>I think the cultural "straightjacket (yes, it is a purposely chosen extreme word for a not so extreme but important attribute or condition) we all have, whether it is the culture of our local or our national society, or the culture of the type of photography we have chosen, is I believe more of an issue or challenge than that of borrowing from former photographic movements or techniques.</p>

<p>We see this played out to some degree on this site and it seems to be an important factor, even in peoples who are ostensibly not too distant in experience (Europeans and North Americans, Canadian and American socio-political experience and viewpoints, differences among Americans of differing places, society, French Canadian and English Canadian cultural dissimilarities, rural and urban differences, male and female forms of priorities, and so on). It is a good thing, as it incites us to consider thoughts of others from outside our own comfortable culture. What I would love to see is more interaction on the cultural and photographic levels of members from the Orient, Middle East, African, North American, South American, etc. Those differences may be useful in cross-fertilising our own perceptions, photographically speaking or otherwise. For example, little cultural imperatives or values are brought to the fore here from Oriental or South American posters, which may partly be caused by language differences.</p>

>>> Like I said, Brad, I have a more cultural/communal view of things. ...

 

That's great, Fred.

 

While you seem to want to limit and package it as being orthogonal, doing collaborative work, having a

cultural/command view, etc is hardly at odds with what was expressed specifically with respect to the

OP, or, to my point of not wanting to take the time (now) to ferret out the perfect word/descriptor to

efficiently (in order to not hijack the thread) describe the feeling you get from photography. As an aside, we all have

lots of photographer/artist friends we respect for connecting within the community - especially in SF.

<p>I'm going to try and sympathies with your premise and suppose that doing funky things to <em>pure </em>photography just makes you uneasy. I too was disdainful of "creative things you can do with your photos" thinking. The results were inevitably tasteless schlock. As I saw more sophisticated results were being attained post-acquisition, I loosened up. As a more liberal critic I now pose the question: "does it <em>inform </em>the work". <em>It</em> meaning whatever is applied, rather than what is intrinsic to the print. I call these "art treatments". The "inform the work" question also applies to choice of camera or film medium. Becoming even more liberal with age - verging on second childhood - I glory in plug-in art treatments and find no shame in doing them. My most cherished sacred cow was watercolor paintings. I am still fairly doctrinaire in that medium - no opaque white - EVER! But, I love the look of "watercolor" plugins. I have a good rationale for my flipflop. Plugins themselves are a medium just like paint and film. Used intelligently (yes, even TX400 simulated grain) they can be used in a work of art - photographic or otherwise. <br /> I've been sorting cartons of old family photos. The B/W ones shot with good cameras, no matter how bad the picture, are sharp and snappy. The Brownie to Instamatic stuff is uniformly awful. Forget about color snaps. They are gone, gone, gone. There is an <em>old color photo </em>plugin I don't recommend.</p>