Today, I picked up a roll of film I had shot about a week ago. Somehow, I had mistaken it for black and white. However, it was color. I had shot the roll practicing with my homemade color filters. And now I have 36 wasted prints, and I'm $13 poorer. I learned the magic of contrast enhancement via colored filters while under the wing of the great Boise photographer Rick Baker (who sadly passed away during a ski accident). Rick had an incredible assortment of filters that he generously lent out to his students to play with. I'll never forget being fourteen years old and carefully logging each photograph I took in a steno notebook "March 7th, 2006 9:02 pm. Shot 16. Man (sam?) with brick. f 2.6 shutter 30. Poor tungsten lighting. used tripod and blue filter." This is one of the many things I miss about true film photography- the dedication. Every shot was precious, each roll a laborious chore to develop, spending hours hunched over an enlarger, trying to get the perfect exposure, to not waste costly paper on mistakes. Now, with digital, although I have greater control of post processing, I feel so disconnected with the actual capturing. I can easily take a hundred photos for one shoot, choosing maybe one or two to begin a a series of clicks, eventually coming up with something suitable. Although I totally dig digital, I still miss the feeling of pride that would come after a day in darkroom. "I did this. Every step of the way. It is truly a part of me." I have no idea when or why film became synonymous with under exposed, grainy, blurry images, but it disgusts me. It is so simple to pick up a toy camera and shoot a roll of total shit and call it art, because film is so "funky." Film is not "funky." Up until a few short years ago, all the great photos of the world, from Yousuf Karsh's Winston Churchill 1941, to Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl, or Dorthea Lange's Migrant Mother were all taken with film. Film is such a beautiful and magical thing. Now here is how I feel about the ending of production of Polaroid film; Polaroids repulse me. The sooner the film is wasted on a drunken tween photography, the better. And, also, Lomography is hardly a fucking fine art. So, please, don't get me started. I don't like to think of myself as a photographic "snob" but if appreciating good photography is wrong, then, fuck, I don't want to be right. done.
...
This post has gotten waaay off subject. What I really wanted to focus on was, as the title says the importance of filters. To the right, I have created an example of the use of filters to increase contrast (from the digital test shots used to aid in the before mentioned "ruined" roll.) The leftmost image shows a raw, unfiltered b&w. The poor natural light coming through the blinds provides poor contrast. However, applying a red filter, reduces the blue overtones caused by rain outside. Thus, more of the light entering the camera becomes usable, and contrast is increased. This sort of simple trick really adds a lot to a simple low light photo, turning it from a silhouette to a more "mysterious" low lit portrait. The unfortunate grain is the result of using a dodgy three year old camera that has been through quite a lot of abuse. All in all, I'm still pleased with the accident, and will add the photos to my pile of mistake stock photos. :)
You are a true photographer. I have often thought about taking photography up, but then I realize it's more science and chemistry than I'm really interested in pursuing. Oh, and hard work. I think I just saw Antonioni's "Blow Up" too many times. But you, you keep on rocking.
ReplyDelete