Proof sheet of life.

[luis_g]

<p>About a week before Christmas, I was photographing in a neighboring town, and leaned in close to a storefront window and made a 3-exposure bracket of some tourist trinkets. I sensed someone watching me and turned around to see two SP'ers, a Batman-Robin team, with the former doing all the talking. He had that old-school somewhat crazed, pseudo-artiste, baggy jacket, unshaven look. He held his Nikon out and clicked off about 4 exposures. He asked "Did ya get a good one?". Another half-dozen exposures. I said Hello and "maybe, but probably not". More exposures of me. With an aura of arrogance worthy of an SP Oscar (The Henri?) he looked upon me pitifully and remarked: "You don't know, do you?" I forced a smile. Snapping another 4-6 shot sequence. I said, lightly annoyed, "That little window below the back of the hump atop your camera is a finder. You might use it sometime, it can helpful in composing." He replied almost startled, "No, man <em>I spray". </em>I said my good-byes, shook their hands, and deliberately went the other way. I could hear his mirror slapping as he made the last string of exposures. <em><br /></em><br>

Habits.<br>

_________________________________________</p>

<p>Julie and Fred, thank you for your insightful comments.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>This isn't a direct comment on your post, but it fits in slantwise. With digital, photography has lost all contact w/ "reality". Before digital, people could manipulate things to a certain extent in a darkroom, but it was nothing to the point we have today. If you went to view a photograph before digital, whether it was in Life magazine, at a gallery, or snapshots at a friend's home, there was an underlying understanding that what you were looking at was based on factual reality. A photograph captured a moment in time, documented a real moment in time, and people viewed it accordingly. Digital's effect has been to shatter that truth, and replace it with....nothing. Now, a photograph is nothing more than manipulation of light and dark. A de facto painting that LOOKS like a photograph, but isn't, and it looks as good as the manipulator is able to make it. It refects a manipulator's view, one that is no longer grounded in the factual recording of the moment. So it really doesn't matter if one shot is taken or a thousand, it's what happens afterwards, both in the manipulation stage, and how it's viewed by others.</p>

<p>I do only B&W photography, and only film. Many, many times I wonder, why? People today don't appreciate it. They aren't capable of seeing the nuances between a photograph lovingly developed and printed on fiber paper, and a bit of inkjet paper covered in printer ink. The latter looks "good enough" to them, and they wonder why anyone would bother w/ such an antiquated method of making images. Sitting at their computer monitor, printing images on their printer, they have no idea of the craft and skill required to make a good B&W film print. But then I always come back to the reality....I do it for me. I do it because it is a better method, because it does look a lot better, because it is a real photograph, and I can see it clearly. Pity they often can't, but I make the stuff for me, and to my standards. It is a real life document of what was happening in front of the lens.<br /> .</p>

[mike dixon]

"Pity they often can't, but I make the stuff for me, and to my standards."

 

Must be terrible living in a world where other people don't recognize the superiority of your views and methods.