How Connected are You to Your Photography?

www.dennismook.com

Photography has been a large part of my life since the spring of 1970.  I mean a seriously large part of my life.  I haven't put a camera down for more than a few weeks (purposely for therapeutic reasons of "walking away" to generate more desire and creativity) since then.  I would say I'm very connected to my photography.  How connected are you?

What part does photography play in your life?  What does it mean to you in the long term as well as everyday?  How does it make you feel?  How much desire do you really have?  Are you serious about your photography or is it a mild distraction in contrast to other things in your life?  Lots of questions for you to answer for yourself.

As connected as I currently am to my photography as I am, I don't think I'm quite as connected as I was when I made images using film.  Why?  It was different making images with film those years ago.  I used to be totally immersed in photography in every way.  Now, with automation, one doesn't need to be as fully immersed in the craft.  Let me tell you why.

I learned photography when everything was manual.  No automation.  From the process of seeking out materials to learn photography, to making the images, to developing film, to printing and processing one's images, nothing was easy or automated.  Basically, there were very few resources available and one had to have the impetus to do it all one's self or fail.  I spent years learning how to make images, the Zone System and how to process and print very high quality as well as archivally.

Here is the difference between then and now and why, in the past, I was more connected.

a) When I wanted to learn about photography, one had to take formal college classes in photography, read photography magazines, subscribe to a photographer's newsletter, or go to a bookstore or library to buy or read books about photography.  There was no Internet as a resource to find material, no You Tube or Vimeo for tutorials, no Lynda.com or Kelby Training, almost no workshops available, no electronic media for one to watch, listen or learn.  You were on your own to find the material and learn it yourself, for the most part.  You read, studied, tried, failed, read some more, tried again, failed again and again, and finally got better.

b) There was no automation.  I learned on a fully manual camera, a Minolta SR T-101.  The adjustments were shutter speed, aperture and focus.  That was about it.  You had to fully learn how to use the camera properly in the situations you encountered in order to achieve some sort of success.  There was no LCD on the back to confirm you "got the shot."  You did your best from your learning and experience, then when the film was processed, you found out either you made the image you wanted or you failed.  There were lots of failures back then.  Failures then breed successes now.  And--did I mention you had to be fast?  When light changed, distance changed, etc., you had to make the changes--the camera was all manual and it couldn't make any changes.  Not only did you have to think about composition, shutter speed, aperture and focus, you always had to keep in the back of your mind, that if something changed about the scene, including the light, you had to make appropriate changes on your camera to compensate.  You really had to concentrate and think!

c) There was a higher learning curve, not so much for basic photography skills as those basic skills translate across time, but in the developing in film and making prints.  There was no Internet, iPads or smart phones on which to display your images.  One had to choose a film that was appropriate to the situation.  There were many, many slide and print films from which to choose.  There were daylight balanced and tungsten balanced films for color and there were full spectrum as well as ortho-chromatic and infrared films for black and white imaging.  There were considerations for grain, contrast, saturation, flesh tones, etc.  Lots of decisions on just using the best film for your purpose.  After that, you may decided whether or not you needed to make images at ISOs other than that rated by the manufacturer--higher or lower ISOs (they were called ASAs back then).  If you needed to "push" a film, or use it at a higher than rated ISO, then you also had to change the developing procedure.  Same with "pulling" film, using it at a lower than rated ISO.  Then, if black and white, you had to make a choice of which developer to use to develop your film.  Some developers were high activity and gave you a film speed higher than nominally rated.  Some developers were high acutance, which gave you sharp edges on the film grain increasing the appearance of sharpness.  There were water-bath developers to bring out every bit of detail in the highlights and shadows for very high contrast scenes.  I could go on, but the point is that it wasn't like popping a memory card out of the camera and loading images into your computer.

When it came to making prints, it wasn't Photoshop or Aperture or Lightroom.  It was a, much like film, which paper do you want to use based upon the papers' attributes.  Do you want a cold-toned paper, a warm-toned paper?  What grade paper for the negative's contrast range or do you want to use a multi-contrast paper?  Do you want to use a fiber-based paper or a resin coated paper?  Do you want to use a single-weight paper or a double-weight paper.  What developer are you going to use?  Some are higher activity and some are lower activity developers according to your needs and how you want your final print to look.  Do you want to tone the print?  Do you want to use selenium, gold, brown, blue or other toner?  It goes on and on.  Then you have to process it archivally so it will be around for a hundred years.  When it came to hardware, what enlarger to buy?  What enlarging lens is best?  Don't forget the device to precisely focus the image on your enlarging paper!  Choices.  Lots of choices.

Contrast that with how easy it is put your camera on some mode of fully or semi-automatic, use exposure compensation, use your camera's ability to automatically bracket, etc., then to pop your memory card into your computer, upload your image, make a few adjustments, then print them out with a dye or pigment based printer.  Now, there is more to it than that, but not nearly as complex a process as with silver-based photography.

d)  I call being connected to your photography "immersion".  In the film days, if you were a serious photographer, you were totally immersed in your art.  With digital, it isn't quite that way.  You are immersed, but I don't think quite to the same degree.

So, to wrap this up, I'm very connected to my photography today, but I was much more immersed, thus more deeply connected just because of the process, than I am today.  I still get the same pleasure out of making images as I always have.  I just don't have to work as hard to be good as I once did.

Final thought:  does all this automation and available information and technology dangerous?  Does it make us lazy?  I'll let you think about that.

Thanks for looking.  Enjoy!

Dennis Mook


All content on this blog is © Dennis A. Mook.  All Rights Reserved.  Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution.  Permission may be granted for commercial use.  Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.