Analogue / film photographers?

Heyy! I am a film photographer, but for some unknown reasons i did not ever shot my dolls on a film. Guess i should give it a try. Thanks for the idea, i'm gonna share the results as soon as i can scan the film.)

 

I only shoot digital, but I think using film on dolls would be an exercise in frustration.

I take a million shots to get one keeper. Figuring exposure is easy enough, but the rest of it is very fiddly.

I look at a picture on the computer screen and see that there is a single hair in an eye, or a joint looks off due to the angle, or there is a fold in the cloths that makes it look terrible, or a reflection/hotspot in the resin or eye. I can never pick up all of that in the viewfinder, or even on the camera's screen.

I couldn't imagine doing that on film. Though I suppose you could use a digital camera to get everything right, then switch to film. That's possibly considered cheating though.

 

Fashion photographers would often take Polaroids to check out lighting etc before committing to film, so not cheating.

I started out in film and am now a fully committed digital photographer. For me, any advantages of using film (which are primarily the quality of the print) are non-existent, as I seldom print.

However, I know some people find the process of film photography forces a contemplative approach that is easy to miss with digital. You are obliged to take more time and care with the shot, due to the limited number of frames you have available and the cost of film and processing. Perhaps because I started in film, I have an almost painfully contemplative approach already (set up. Go away. Come back. Tweak. Go away again, etc). I suppose you could train yourself to have that approach with digital by setting yourself a limit of shots to take in a sitting. Every shot then counts.

@dollhausen has taken doll photos with a vintage camera and lens, which gave a very pleasing effect. Perhaps he will come on here and share some insights.

 

Oh, lord, analog I started out as a Navy photojournalist, in the 70s. Totally analog of course. Fortunately I did NOT have to pay for film etc - the photo shop (a real one w/2 Photographer's Mates which was a rate in the Navy LOL) would print out a contact sheet so I could figure out my best shots - I had a little eyeglass & would put it on a light box.
I did some personal photography at this time, even bought a 35mm camera, but OMG it was soooo expensive compared to now! I would have no idea how my pics came out, or if they even DID, until I developed them. The ones I did for my paper (I was the editor) I could see pretty quick (that photo shop) but still there were times that I'd take a whole roll, only to find only a couple that were usable.
I have NO nostalgia from any of that. It was why I stopped bothering w/photography after I got reassigned in the Navy & sand got in my own fancy camera! I made do w/disposable cameras for years until phones got them, which made me smile. I finally got a digital camera and my worldview of photography completely changed.

 

@Mermaidgrey, still life photography, which this is, suits a contemplative approach. Our subjects aren't going anywhere and are incredibly patient. You can set up at your own pace; put on your reading glasses to check those stray hairs and that fluff on the jacket; zoom in using the preview screen to make sure the eyes are really are looking straight at you and not one out of the window and one into the corner; check composition and lighting through the viewfinder; take a test snap or two; do bit of chimping and then the proper shot. Then rearrange pose, angle or whatever for the next shot. There is no need to fire off tens of shots, as you would do in event photography, where you are fearful of losing that transient moment. There are no transient moments in still life. It's quite happy to wait for you to sort yourself out.

And this is dollhausen's photos on the (very) vintage camera. I will give him a nudge to come on here and say something about it.

 

As Mau has said, I'm a film photographer both in my art practice and with my dolls. I actually bought my first digital camera to take shots of my dolls so I could post them to DoA. I did my photostories that way and it was good. I got no gripe with digital.

However, I didn't really make what I think of as art photographs until I started using my view camera to take photos of the dolls. One thing I like about using a 4x5 view camera is that it makes me slow down and focus on getting that one shot. The large ground glass allows me to see really well and make adjustments:

But I don't shoot until I have it right.

What I like about shooting film is that it slows me down. Instead of screwing around taking a jillion jpegs that I'll spend a ton of time messing with later, I take one shot. And yes, it ain't cheap and that makes me think about what I want to shoot and whether this really is the shot. All of this teaches me discipline but it also teaches me to see at the get go. One of the problems with digital is that it satisfies somewhat in an instant but when you're chimping, you're not looking, not truly seeing what's in front of you. When I shoot digital I notice it. That after I finally got the wig squared away, the lights and got the shot that I find that it wasn't a good shot to begin with. It was too easy for me to just start blasting away. In the end I don't find shooting faster with digital.

The hard part about analog is that it require work to learn. But once you've mastered the process it becomes second nature. I don't worry about whether something is going to come out because I know what I'm doing. I meter everything with a spot meter and know my film and my lenses. Of course a lot of people would have an easier time if they really worked hard to learn how to shoot digitally. Once you do the work until its second nature, the delta between seeing in your mind and shooting is shorter no matter what kind of photography you're doing.

For the Sanderdoll project I conceived of it as a way to explore the idea that though dolls have manufacturers (we can all have an Iplehouse Bianca) they become individuals in that hands of the people who paint and clothe them. I was working out of the ideas espoused by German photographer August Sander who thought that you could see physical similarities in certain types of people. For the works I've made in this series, I shoot film and make prints in the darkroom, 16x20 prints. That's the hard part, color darkrooms are few and far between. The closed the color darkroom down in Seattle right after I started my project and to print I now have to drive 60 miles. Unfortunately, I have my own art photography to work on so the Sanderdoll project has slowed down. But I'm still working on it.

Image on the easel bed in the darkroom:



I don't always shoot large format though, I have a 35mm camera and a Hasselblad medium format camera. For those mediums I send my film out to be developed and scanned. I think that's a nice intermediate way to explore analog to see if you're interested in it. One of the things I don't like about 35mm is that it's too much like digital, 36 shots on a roll. I find medium format to be a nice compromise, a big negative with great detail and just enough shots that can be scanned at a price that's economical.

I think one reason to explore analog would be to force yourself to see and think differently about photography. Even if you end up just going back to digital I think the experience would inform that with new insights. I don't really believe in the either/or scenario and I do like digital for lots of things. I can't see doing my photostories (which are long and have gotten longer and more cinematic) with analog. For general doll photography, I use digital for the ease of delivering an image to the web. For more serious efforts where I want a print, I'll shoot analog for sure. I wish I had the time, I'd learn to paint better and would make paintings of the dolls. But I'll leave to to Fishcake. She's great.

Oh yeah, I've used Polaroids to check exposure etc when I'm on-site at a doll convention and shooting other people's dolls. Ad hoc, on-site lighting can be a little tricky.

I have an 8x10 view camera on order and will probably start shooting dolls in B&W so I can make contact prints at home. I have no idea how that's going to go but find the idea exciting. I have an Epson scanner so I can make scans of prints to put up on the web. It's not big enough for 16x20's like this though, but I love looking at these at this size....

 

Thanks, Chris! That was really useful.

I know you and I have had many convos about film versus digital (and we both remain wed to our particular favourite). It does sound as though we are not so very far away from each other on what we see as the advantage of film. It encourages a contemplative approach. However, I am proof that one can still have that approach with digital. However, I do now wonder whether that is simply because I started with film and a darkroom. I can't get my head around what it would be like for one's first camera to be digital. I could believe that it does completely change one's approach to the business of producing an image. So, I am about to do a complete volte-face and say that it actually would be a good idea for people to try film photography, if they never have. Get the discipline and feel of that in their bones before reverting to digital. If you have access to a darkroom, to feel what it's like to process a photo, that would complete the experience. However, I'm sure a lot could be learned from just thinking about limited frames and money needed to process.

And, seeing as we are on it, I am going to recommend a camera. It was my first SLR and recently came up in a photography article as a on-going favourite; the Canon AE-1. You can get a body on eBay for about $55/£45. A 50mm lens would complete that. It is a thing of beauty and pretty straightforward to use.

 

@MadamMauMau I know very many digital photographers (including myself) that use digital to get...good enough the easy way. And it looks it. I do know some digital photographers that are excellent. Most of them started with film and then made the move for a variety of reasons, (insanely high ISO's, home printing workflows, need to get stuff up on the web) and some are just those people that put in the hard work to really learn digital. I think your own photography is excellent because of the amount of time you put into lighting, seriously amazing lighting. I think anyone that puts serious time and effort into mastering their medium can achieve excellent results, either film or digital or oil paints or what have you.

One thing we should probably mention here is workflows. I know for yourself and many others, the ability to go from camera to Photoshop (or LightRoom) is what make photography possible. For those that want to print, an inkjet printer at home is the only way they could make a print.
For me, photography is a print. The darkroom is a meditative experience and I love handling the enlarger, the paper, easels and still gasp at the magic of watching a print emerge from chemistry or come out of the machine. I'm very adept at this process and find it relaxing. As someone who's a technology professional at my day job, I hate the idea of coming home and spending even more time on the computer. I hate everything about Photoshop; trying to work with a mouse and tools on a screen. Sliders and such for color adjustments and the amount of tools in menus, submenus, subsubmenus, etc etc, usually make me want to scream and punch my monitor. HATE IT! Yet, for all that, I've bought in inkjet printer because I have to learn it. Though B&W printing is everywhere, color analog printing is on life support. Since I don't own a car I have to either organize friends or rent a car to drive from Seattle to Olympia to print. It's a real hassle.

So now I'm working on digital workflows to produce prints. I had a show in Seattle with 30x40 and 40x50 inch prints and I had to scan negatives, Photoshop them up and then had Lightjet prints made. There is no way I could have made prints that large in the darkroom and had them be that sharp. The higher the enlarger goes, the more sharpness you lose. I'm trying to get to a point where all of my film gets scanned and I can at least make workprints on my Epson. But in the future I may become adept enough that I'll be able to make satisfying inkjet prints at home. But I know that's going to require a ton of work. In the interim I'm happy to take advantage of all the technological tools we have, both analog and digital to engage with various forms of artmaking.

 

Yup. I can understand that you don't want to stare at a computer screen at home as well as at work. Also, I can understand your bafflement with Photoshop (but tablet, not mouse! Please!). I can also understand your love of the darkroom. It is a special place and adds to that meditative state that starts with creating the photograph. However, as you know, I don't believe that film is intrinsically superior to digital. The fact that there are more crap digital photos out there than print is down to the ease with which a digital photograph can be taken. Both media are equally difficult to master and both can yield stunning or appalling results. We choose whatever suits our particular skills, interests and opportunities.

My fear is always that debates such as these, by emphasising equipment, risk overlooking the more important elements of composition, lighting, palette, concept etc. However, I do accept that, in this case, the way one is forced to work with each of the type of equipment can have an effect on how one approaches the task of creating an image. So, yes, for people who tend to snap impulsively, restricting themselves to film for a while might well be of benefit.

 

I know guys in NYC that have an enlarger in the closet and put it on top of the toilet and trays of chemistry in the bathtub. I have a darkroom sink that is wood coated with the stuff they use to seal boats. It has a drain at one end. It's the exact size of a standard bathtub so goes on top. I'll post a pic tomorrow. But yeah, it's easy to setup a B&W darkroom. I'll gather some resources and post back.

 

@Mermaidgrey, you probably have a camera club in your area. Get in touch with them and they might be able to point you in the direction of a darkroom you could use. Worth a try.