From an old 4 x 5 neg (1993).
8/21/2006
my retrospective
I've covered most of the interesting shots from the past 15 years. I learned a couple of things from this review:
a) That Delta 400 film was bad news. It is a skinny negative and hard to get into the medium format film carrier without all sorts of cursing. If under-exposed, it looks absolutely awful. The early rolls (when the film first came out) - all turned purple. And it is definitely grainier than other 400 films.
b) Cameras: Whether you've shot it with a 4 x 5, or a 35mm - if you didn't "get the shot" it doesn't matter what you shot it with. And for me the odds of "getting the shot" are increased exponetionally with a 35mm camera.
c) Especially in the beginning, I shot the same things so many times it's nauseating to look at. For example, I had a fixation with photographing a group of people crossing the street towards me. I knew what I wanted, but I never got it. About ten people crossing, about 15 feet away - all doing something interesting, and none of them noticing the camera. I don't know what put that idea in my head but I must have about 1000 shots with this premise - all of them boring.
These fixed ideas are all over the place. Sometimes they eventually pay off with one good shot and then I never go through it again. But flipping through sheets of negatives I hear myself saying - oh man - not that idea again! On the other hand - I guess that any sort of art is mostly about some obsession, otherwise, why bother?
d) Of all the cameras that I used over the years - the only camera that did not give me one good shot was the Pentax 645 which I used for about six months. I have no idea why. I got more shots with the Pentax 67 than the 645.
Now it's back to making some new negatives.
a) That Delta 400 film was bad news. It is a skinny negative and hard to get into the medium format film carrier without all sorts of cursing. If under-exposed, it looks absolutely awful. The early rolls (when the film first came out) - all turned purple. And it is definitely grainier than other 400 films.
b) Cameras: Whether you've shot it with a 4 x 5, or a 35mm - if you didn't "get the shot" it doesn't matter what you shot it with. And for me the odds of "getting the shot" are increased exponetionally with a 35mm camera.
c) Especially in the beginning, I shot the same things so many times it's nauseating to look at. For example, I had a fixation with photographing a group of people crossing the street towards me. I knew what I wanted, but I never got it. About ten people crossing, about 15 feet away - all doing something interesting, and none of them noticing the camera. I don't know what put that idea in my head but I must have about 1000 shots with this premise - all of them boring.
These fixed ideas are all over the place. Sometimes they eventually pay off with one good shot and then I never go through it again. But flipping through sheets of negatives I hear myself saying - oh man - not that idea again! On the other hand - I guess that any sort of art is mostly about some obsession, otherwise, why bother?
d) Of all the cameras that I used over the years - the only camera that did not give me one good shot was the Pentax 645 which I used for about six months. I have no idea why. I got more shots with the Pentax 67 than the 645.
Now it's back to making some new negatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)