True photographic freedom.

[mrraz]

<p>I've come to a surprising realization over the last week or two. I no longer have the emotional requirement to justify my work on the internet. From this point forward I will present my work only in a print form factor. I will also only produce a single print from each from each image before destroying the image file. It's an amazingly liberating experience.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Enjoy!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>From this point forward I will present my work only in a print form factor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, OK. I suppose that might work, depending on who your (prospective) audience is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will also only produce a single print from each from each image before destroying the image file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You lost me, there. These are photographs, not monotypes. Again, do your thing! But however liberating that might be, you certainly lose the liberty to ... make another print. Regardless, enjoy the process, since that's the whole point if you're not doing it for a living.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Prints are great and I agree are the best way to show an image. However, I think I have more freedom in choosing later whether a negative or a file is worth keeping or not and whether a better print can be made from it later. I also like the freedom to make a more longlasting print or one in a different size at a later date.</p>

<p>I wouldn't acquire for myself any greater freedom by immediately destroying the neg or the electronic image file. That would be something I might do at the end of my days of photographing, but not before. Of course, I am not referring to the vast number of images I make, only those I love.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I enjoy revisiting negs and files as my skills, tastes, and ideas change over time. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p> "Watson, there is more to this declaration than meets the eye." Someone got stiffed over something perhaps. It happens, I have heard. </p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>I guess from a true artistic nature, if you can afford to do this, then go for it!</p>

[mrraz]

<p>Gerry, it has nothing to do with being stiffed over anything. It's simply a refinement of my emotional requirements at this point in my life.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Why stop there? If you're serious about this liberation thing, throw your cameras in the trash. It makes as much sense but without the lame factor.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Many photographers have destroyed their negatives for comparable reasons, and with the idea that they were increasing the dollar value of their prints. But today there really is no longterm dollar value to prints (IMHO). I happen to be a printer: if one has someone else make one's prints the value is even less than that of the file, which begins with zero value beyond potential. Kill the file, kill the potential. Pay somebody else to make the print, waste the potential. </p>

<p>If it floats your boat, do it. Free country, etc.</p>

<p>"freedom," "amazing," and "liberating" mean relatively little from person to person, and nothing in the abstract. IMO.</p>

<p>Those are my responses, but who cares how any of us respond? After all, the thread wasn't posted to solicit the responses of others, it was just a statement. Right? Wrong?</p>

[mrraz]

<p>mr. hennenberger, I've already gone thru my Zen Photography (seeing the finished image in my mind without having any the emotional need to record it) phase. From where I sit, the only lame factor involved can be solely attributed to you. I am, satisfied.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>you certainly lose the liberty to ... make another print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You certainly do but as an art form, photography is an oddity in that identical copies can be made when required from the film or file. Most other art forms are one off operations such as painting, sculpting, etc.<br>

The only other repeatable method I can think of is screen printing.</p>

[philipward]

<p>Glenn,I can,t say I understand your reasoning but I do respect it. Perhaps you could elaborate on the process that brought you to this point.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p> I've already gone thru my Zen <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00WruG?start=10" target="_blank">Photography</a> (seeing the finished image in my mind without having any the emotional need to record it) phase.</p>

<p>You haven't, yet, gone through the Zen Writing (thinking of an announcement without of the empotional need to broadcast it) phase. Its just as silly. Sorry.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>You have good work. What you do with a file or negative doesn't matter. But if you want to throw them away for zen reasons then that's your call.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>you certainly lose the liberty to ... make another print.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ahhh; the true definition of (Limited Edition)</p>

<p>If the camera were also thrown away, would that be (Limited Edition LTD)? Hmmm?</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>You could always scan that print to make a copy.</p>

[woolly1]

<p><strong>I no longer have the emotional requirement to justify my work on the internet.</strong></p>

<p>I just went to your PNet portfolio and the photos are all still there. The ones I looked at were still critiquable and some were still rateable. Am I missing something here with this new state of mind 'cos it looks like many other portfolios? :)</p>

<p>It would be a sad loss to deprive the world of your work though.</p>

[mrraz]

<p>Clive, only images with comments remain. That's out of respect for those that took time comment. All other images have been removed.</p>

<p>John O, Someone else might scan one of my prints having purchased it, but it will not be me.</p>

<p>Philip, I don't even know if I understand what happened, but "process" does not feel like it was involved in this personal insight.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Glenn, while you're paring down your aesthetic to the essentials, you might enjoy the zen garden approach of the currently non-archival instant film from <a href="http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/allabout/pxfilm/">The Impossible Project</a>. (You'd also need a physically compatible Polaroid camera.)</p>

<p>While some photographers scoff at TIP film for - at least as of this writing - failing the usual tests for archival quality, another way to look at it might be to regard it as sand sculpture at the beach or a snowman. Enjoy it for the moment, for the act of creation. And in some ways there's a certain pleasure in observing the effects of entropy on something we've created. It's liberating, not having to worry about the hopeless goal of trying to preserve something that cannot and should not be preserved. Instead, enjoy the moment of creation.</p>

[k5083]

<p>It would seem that in this case, freedom really is just another word for nothing left to lose.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Glenn, with your back ground, in my opinion, you can do what ever you want and I am with you 100 per cent. Did you ever run in to Catherine LeRoy in VN? She was one of the best and was a member here on PN till she died a few years ago. Her Hill 881 images were something.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Glenn, got it. See what you're doing now.<br>

But I have to ask .... you have only been a PNet subscriber since 2008 yet your photography spans perhaps 50 years. What has made you come to this decision in barely 2 years?<br>

Did you exhibit/post elsewhere before or initially seek an audience that you now eschew? Perhaps you now see the rating system as flawed, worthless or self gratifying and experienced an epiphany of the value of photography solely to oneself?<br>

Will you still post here as I feel your abstracts in particular are an inspiration. You need not put up for critique/rating.</p>

<p>You don't need to explain but you did make a conscious effort to announce the decision so I feel able to ask.</p>

<p>Regards.</p>

[mrraz]

<p>Clive, I've been on a couple photo sites where I posted my work before arriving at Pnet. One I left for lack of feeling far too confined by the community rules. I left the other after crossing verbal swords with the wicked witch of the west(admin). The revelation didn't take anywhere near 2 years. It was more like 2 actual weeks of a thought here, a feeling there. I almost woke up one morning knowing, "this works."</p>

<p>I figured out the rating system Pnet uses was virtually useless and stopped giving or receiving ratings rather quickly. I continued to critique images, but as time went by there were fewer images that peeked my interest. Finally, there was nothing of interest.</p>

<p>No, I will not be posting any further images in the future, abstract or otherwise.</p>

<p>I made the decision to announce this after realizing how good I felt about the photographic direction I had decided to take. I merely wanted to present my revelation as a possibility for others.</p>

<p>Best regards</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Glenn,</p>

<p>I understand the suffocating rules remark and sometimes feel that the moderators and their gang are intolerant of newby postings (not everyone reads the Ts & Cs before asking questions.) For sure the site is higher up on the 'no mindless chatter' index but it's done with an iron fist in some cases.</p>

<p>Yep, the rating system is flawed and open to abuse with buddy-rating cliques and stalkers (anonymous low raters you've upset in the past). On the plus side it is simple although I believe no rating should be anonymous. Hey, it is what it is.<br>

The critiques sometimes look like the remarks on the 'Rate this seller' pages of ^mazon and 3bay ..... almost the minimum that could be written whilst retaining syntax, and sometimes less. I believe you need a full paragraph to construct any meaningful critique. The 'Nice photo' postings are a worthless waste of bytes in the critique area.<br>

HOWEVER, I believe the information on technique, objective product experience and the withering of subjective Nikon vs Canon vs **** claims are second to none. The level of knowledge stored within these pages is truly amazing and I sometimes ponder that there are two communities here, one for the photos and another for the fora.</p>

<p>But this is aside from your subject.</p>

<p>Your decision re: printing just one copy harks back to the days of shoe boxes stuffed with drug store prints that get thumbed through when family come to visit or in the declining years remembering moments from the past.</p>

<p>Glenn, are you tiring of photography at large or just the places to exhibit them. When you talk of imagining the image without actually taking the shot makes you sound like, well you already know you can do it so why try?</p>

<p>There is a parallel you will share with painters who only ever have one copy of any canvas (unless your name is Vincent vG) and value it all the more because of that. If they show it then they will choose the audience.It will be a more personal affair with their narrative and real discussion. You don't always need the whole world to be at your party. :) </p>

<p>Just because you can run several copies and keep the negative for more later doesn't mean you must.<br>

For me your freedom achieved is only in not being married to old images and free to go out and make some anew to replace them. I won't be destroying mine though as PP technology is always improving and I need the old stuff to help me mend past mistakes in my technique. Mistakes which at the time I didn't have the knowledge to either recognise or correct.</p>

<p>Good luck with your imagery <br>

Clive</p>