A sense of touch

[aginbyte]

Thought based on a photograph by <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6719366">Jim

Hoffman</a>.

 

It seems to me that one thing missing in photography as an art is the kinesthetic experience of the

physical motion. Something that ties the body into the art on a repetitive basis. I used to do calligraphy

(western) and there was something to be said for the moment when a motion became part of the

vocabulary, embedded in the action of creation. This shot gives that feeling, the freedom of the lightly

held brush, large and heavy, and the delicate small intersecting lines that make up the characters. This

may have two significant results.

 

First, it may be the reason that people feel that photography is the easiest art form in which to start.

There are no significant physical barriers in handling the instrument, as in drawing/painting, playing a

musical instrument, sculpting. It may also be the reason that most people feel that they can write, again,

there is no physical barrier to doing so. In the case of both writing and photography, the accomplishment

of any kind of expertise is gained ... as in all art ... by tremendous concentration and application. A single

shot does not a portfolio make.

 

Second, it may be a reason that people who have shot and processed film for years feel dissatisfied with

digital. Where is the sense of touch that one has with emulsion, with chemicals. We miss the physical

sensations, and we miss the tactile feedback. Digital can seem cold and lifeless. It has nothing to do with

the image produced. It has to do with the kinesthetic experience of the art form.

 

Any comments or observations?

[rnt]

I agree. One of the things that I'm aware of when I shoot film (much less often than digital these days) is the feeling of 'production'. The incremental movement of film through the camera, each virtual (at that point) frame embossed with a latent image, which is converted into metallic silver in the darkroom... Almost like sculpting an image.

 

There are other tactile facets to the process- the smell of the film (yes, it has a smell), the smell of fixer... Evokes a lot of fond Proustian memories.

[colin carron]

I disagree. I feel strangely moved when I put that CF card into the camera.

[Julie H]

Dennis,

 

In order to do fast moving sports, you have to follow the game so intensely that you see your shots before they happened. If you see what you want to photograph before deciding to shoot it, it is too late -- it requires complete concentration, and perfect hand/eye response.

 

Both the one-with-the-sport concentration and the perfect hand/eye coordination required are very kinesthetic experiences.

 

The same goes for wildlife photography (birds, in my case). It requires intense concentation and perfect anticipation of what the animal will do before they actually do it; birds are very fast. If I wait until I see something to shoot it, it's too late. It is really quite physical.

 

I think the shooting hand/eye coordination is very nearly the same as the hand/eye coordination needed to make art with a brush or pen.

 

Also, when I make composites, I work with a Wacom tablet. I do masking brush work with my stylus/tablet in the same way as any user of a real paintbrush. (Composites require a huge amount of masking for edge work and re-lighting.)

 

-Julie

[dickhilker]

Though I share the fond memories of many years in a darkroom, I find the film/scanner/computer/digital printer combination retains the intimate relationship with my favorite old cameras, while gaining a level of control over the print never before possible. My experience with a new digital camera hasn't been the same, but prinicipally because it's a point & shoot that does everything but point itself, rather than requiring the setup and thought of my LF gear.

 

For some, the picture's the thing, but for others it's mostly about the journey and a personal involvement in the creative process. When that's completely lost to a computer chip, it'll be time for some of us to fold up our tripods and call it a day.

[aginbyte]

I haven't shot film for a decade and frankly don't miss it at all. This post was just a thought

of why some people might miss it from a processing perspective. Julie, you're absolutely

right about the physical response to the camera in nature and sports photography, and

probably street photography as well. For my part, I love the setting up the tripod with a gear

head, putting on the tilt shift and doing all the little mechanical things to get the shot

perfect.

[Julie H]

You are using a view camera or a tilt/shift lens? With a view camera, and a lens short enough to allow you to look and also reach the lens, it is indeed a very physical thing. Almost like you're conforming your brain.

 

I once set up an 8x10 view camera -- big heavy tripod, big heavy camera, etc. -- was under the cover cloth doing my thing -- and then realized I had it perfectly centered on top of a yellow jacket's nest. A very kinesthetic moment. Spent about an hour being the bee-whisperer ("nice bees, niiiice bees") so I could get my stuff moved.

 

-Julie

[rnt]

Perhaps I should get a fixer scented air freshener to hang from my monitor...

[geoffs1]

"I feel strangely moved when I put that CF card into the camera."

 

"Perhaps I should get a fixer scented air freshener to hang from my monitor..."

 

Perfect responses!

[fullmetalphotograper]

I look at as it is all on the wheel what comes around goes around. There is apart of me for

several years, that missed the the control of a 4X5 viewcamera when I started my

commercial photographic career. I then started to shoot 35mm for its freedom and moved

to journalism, I really enjoyed that time I went from the F2 - F5, but missed the control

that I had with the B&W 4X5 view. I hated giving up control of my color film to a lab. I then

was forced to go digital and shoot the Canon D30 the worst designed camera I ever shot

at a paper. When I finally bought a Nikon D2X I found that I regained the freedom of a

35mm, but I found a pleasant surprise I had regained the control of the image capture. I

have found a new love of shooting portraits. I feel like I am finally sculpting with light. I

have not had that sense of control since my days of using 4X5. Is it the same control as

4X5 no. Put much like sketch artist I feel that I am pushing a line. That is the sense I get

with digital. For me digital is just another medium like B&W is to color. What I find is that I

miss the alchemy of the darkroom. Watching that print magically appear in the developer,

but what I have gained is an incredible sense of control of my vision.<div></div>

[felixg]

The oneness with subject and camera mentioned by Julie Heyward is still here

with digital equipment, just as it was with film, and I agree with Dick Hilker

that all the control skills of darkroom days carry over to digital printing.</p>

<p>At the same time, though, I do also know what Robert Tilden means about the

feel of film transport and so on.</p>

<p>For me (not, I know, for everyone) the craft satisfactions of photography and

the making of an image have always been separate <i>but equally important</i>

pleasures.</p>

<p>These days, digital means are my usual (perhaps 95% of the time) choice for

image making, and also allow some of the kinaesthetic satisfaction (<a target="_blank" href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6717251-lg.jpg">especially

when working with human beings and their fleeting facial expressions</a>) while

building cameras, making salt prints, manufacturing and using my own emulsions

to make glass plates for pinhole cameras, allow me to retain all of the old

craft side joys as well.</p>

[pnital]

Dennis, I fully join Julie H. reasoning. I see the camera as a tool for creating, like the brush or the chisel or the pen. I don't see a difference, film or digital but the skills of syncronization of eye/hand( shutter)/concentration. It is not less than using all the other tools.I came to photography from painting and I do it with dance/ music groups, as you know, and developing the skills in using the camera, is not only using the buttons... as a means of creation I don't see the difference.

[aginbyte]

Pnina, the point I was trying to make was that it was possible that people miss the kinesthetic

aspect of handling developer and film and coaxing out the images from physical sources.

That this is one of the reasons some people find digital unappealing. I certainly don't, but in

looking at Hoffman's picture (and actually thinking about your dance/instrument making/

performance images) I remembered my own experience ini calligraphy and recalled that there

can be a physical barrier to creation. The lack of such a barrier may be one reason that the

value of photography is diminished by those who don't know any better.

[machts gut]

It's very much like with Pavlov's Dogs. Push a button, get food. Push a button, bell rings, get food. Bell rings, expect food, lick your mouth. Push the button, make a photo, get excited. Push a button, go in darkroom, make photo, get excited. Smell fixer, get excited.

[Norma Desmond]

Dennis--

 

I loved your reference to calligraphy.

 

I love computers. I use one all the time. I think they're wonderful in many ways, troublesome

in others. I use email extensively. Sometimes, I still love to sit down and write a letter.

 

--Fred

[pnital]

Dennis, thanks for your explanation, as I have had some problem with the English here.Thanks for your help.

[colin carron]

Dennis, photography has consistently become less complicated and the end result simpler to prduce. The pioneer photographers in the 1840s had to use glass plates sensitised in mobile darkrooms and then exposed and developed and fixed while still wet. Then we got dry plates abut 1880 which were more handy but usually slower. Then rollfilm around 1900. After that we had colour flm and 35mm. Now we have digital.

 

The point I am making is that at every stage of photgraphic evolution a photographer would have been able to say that they missed the older process and didn't the difficulties of the older process add to the end product in some way.

 

I am with Pnina et al on this. The camera, the medium, the processing are just the tools used and define the boundaries of what is possible with the technology. The end result is all tha matters.

[chris_waller]

Yes, I know what you mean. I feel too detached from a digital image; it is somehow 'inside the box' and forever unreachable. With 'wet' photography I feel involved in the process through the handling of film, negatives, paper and chemicals. I also feel that the darkroom is somehow a 'privileged space', like a temple almost ..., but now I'm going off on a reverie.

 

But it helps me to understand why sculptors stroke stone, or painters extol the pleasures of applying paint to canvas.

[DB_Gallery]

I was contracted to shoot the stills portion of Andy Goldsworthy and his stone workers or

"Wallers" create a wonderful serpentine line of rock in "Stone River":

 

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-

8DF23CA704F5%7D/winter_07_Feat_StoneRiver.pdf

 

Every day I shot, and I a lot of them, I saw very stark contrasts in how the rest of the

construction workers used machinery, power tools and a host of other modern tools to get

the rest of the building up and going. But the wallers...they kept hammering and chiseling

away using tools that could have been used hundreds of years ago.

 

The sound was mesmerizing.

 

I figure it this way, If I all of the sudden nixed vegetables from my diet, I would surely at

some point be hungry for vegetables. So if at all possible, a balanced diet is in order.

I shoot digital, color and black and white slide, I print using both digital and traditional

means. In other words, I see no reason do deprive my self of anything that allows me to

continue to grow as a visual communicator.

 

I am missing nothing, I keep a healthy balanced diet.

[Norma Desmond]

For me, the process is important. (By the way, I only shoot digital.)

 

I have a hard time relating to someone who says that only the end result matters.

 

The only way I get my end result is by being steeped in and in touch with my process.

 

I love the process. It matters a whole lot to me.

[DB_Gallery]

Socrates: "It's the journey, not the destination".

 

Funny how that gets twisted around in this forum a lot. I happen to think it works both

ways.

 

There is a place I like to go hiking, it is about 6 miles one way. You can walk, ride a

mountain bike, motorcycle, snowshoe, snowmobile or cross country ski. No matter what,

the destination is the same even if it looks different due to the time of year, how many

other people are there, the weather.

 

What makes it different and how you actually feel about the destination is often what

happened on the way there. How you feel about what are using along that journey does

make a difference in what happens when you get there, especially in photography.

 

At least for me anyway...

 

Healthy....balanced.....diet....:-)

[pnital]

Colin ,the last result is important, but the way to arrive to it is not less important than the last result, and this factor is right to all ways of creations, be it film in the dark room, be it PS in digital, literature in writing, sculpture etc. without the way there is no last good result, and even photography is about the decisive moment or a situation, if seriously, post processing needs thinking ! needs all the human existence of life experience that he/she have accumulated , gut feeling as well of what is right or wrong to what the creation will carry within itself.Apriory what you choose! to photograph has relation to your individual life,memories, trying to get deeper to understand yourself and life in general, after all this comes the end result....

[Troll]

I'll bet that you don't do your own wet darkroom work, do you?

[pnital]

Bill, If you refer to me, I have a name ....;-)) I was working in my wet darkroom for about 4-5 years untill I started with digital photography.

[bobtodrick]

This is an unanswerable questions because photography means different things to different people (an obvious statement of course).

 

My other 'hobby' is competition air rifle. I can use a 'modern' (digital if you like) rifle http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/cms/main.php5?cPageId=20 or a more conventional rifle http://www.beeman.com/fwb603.htm like this (well, it's considered 'old school').

 

Personally I like the feel and texture of wood...and something that looks a little more...well...conventional.

 

But at the end of the day all my team-mates care about is how many times I've hit the centre of the target...that is all it's about.

 

I like the 'feel' of my M6. I like watching the print come up in the darkroom. But time constraints coupled with the decreasing product range in the conventions materials (especially fibrebase paper) has meant that I've increasing switched to digital...because in the end it truly (to me) is about the image.

 

There's a little 'test' someone gave me once to find out which camp I belonged to (journey or destination)...You wake up in the middle of the night and your home is ablaze. Your camera bag (journey) is at one end of the house, and your negs (destination) at the other...but you only have time to grab one.

 

Which is it?