What stinks sometimes is when you take something that you love and turn it into a career and then you get sick of it.
I love to shoot film, but I could die happy if I never stepped into a darkroom again in my life. I don't care much for "digital workflow" either, but I'm not sick of it yet. I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. -Aaron -----Original Message----- From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Bailing out. Date: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:43 pm Size: 3K To: [email protected] While I am not doing any serious photography at this time, I do agree with you. Light and chemicals is a different media than light and pixels. I am using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and snapshots thus I get by with a decent P&S. Film is what I enjoy, and B&W film at that. A hobby is supposed to be enjoyable. The digital workflow is just that to me, "WORK"flow. If I was trying to make money with photography digital would be the way to go for the types of stuff I did. However I enjoy the old Speed Graphic and trying to get the shot with one film holder (two sheets of film). As a hobby a couple of hours in the darkroom is soothing to my soul; and it is still magic watching an image appear on a blank sheet of paper even after more than 50 years. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Kevin Waterson wrote: > In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. > What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an > enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not > that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was > in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now > own three of them. > > My problem is that photography has become more of a production line > than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed > and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. > All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely > different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement > and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems > to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. > > Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where > composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? > I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the > advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to > thier art and it still flourishes today. > > To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead > spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still > available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go > back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals > used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). > > I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital > when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on > sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the > world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least > with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in > a pile of decaying discs. > > So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. > The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. > > Kind regards > Kevin >
