dogme 95 for LF

[Tin Can]

Just a thought, and I know APUG exists and I also know this forum long ago decided digital work is absolutely OK.

Is there a movement in Large format similar in 'SPIRIT' to dogme 95?

For those that don't know, read about it, http://www.filmbug.com/dictionary/dogme95.php

I only wonder this, as we seem to be two types, those that scan and those that don't.

I do both, but I am really leaning towards a mindset, where I stop digitizing everything and make wet prints available for direct viewing only. Meaning no digital website of my work, no Facebook page and no digital anything of my own wet printed work.

I see this as a throwback to historical process and exhibition. A rebellion against the "Image Generation" as I call young people these days. Not rejecting young people and digital, but trying to show a different aspect of image making, image viewing and even image value.

Perhaps this has already been discussed.

[Drew Wiley]

If I ever bother to update my website, I'll probably divest it of any images and use it just for a contact page. Although I've gotten plenty of hits from almost every
country in the world, the whole notion of trying to convey print quality vs mere subject matter over the web is largely futile. Then you've got to put up with all these twenty-something career web surfers who have no idea what a real print looks like anyway, and think they can do the same thing with their Dick Tracy digital camera nose-ring. And the only reason I've ever scanned is for web communication. I don't have anything against digital workflow per se - it's just another tool box. But I personally get from point A to point B much more efficiently and much more enjoyably with just a darkroom. And 100% of the prints I've ever sold were due to someone actually seeing them - the web contributed zero to this aspect of it. It's not like I'm selling some kind commodity like WalMart does.
And once I retire, you'll probably never hear from me on a forum again (yeah, I know... you're already celebrating that possibility). Just killing time until another
damned mile-long computer printout spits out.

[Peter Gomena]

Why put restrictions on image making?

Why not use the available tools to realize your vision?

I think we live in a time of marvelous tools. Artists and artisans know how to use them with grace and restraint (and occasionally over-the-top, unbridled abandon) to make images look just right. Why wear a self-imposed straightjacket? It's hard enough to communicate ideas without one.

[Tin Can]

Why ride old motorcycles. Why live in old houses. Why eat local farm food.

Because I can.


Why put restrictions on image making?

Why not use the available tools to realize your vision?

I think we live in a time of marvelous tools. Artists and artisans know how to use them with grace and restraint (and occasionally over-the-top, unbridled abandon) to make images look just right. Why wear a self-imposed straightjacket? It's hard enough to communicate ideas without one.

[Peter Lewin]

So if I understand the principles correctly, the only people who could view your work would be those who live near you, and make an appointment, or visit a gallery if your work is hanging?

[Tin Can]

Yes.

I do live in the middle of Chicago, there are 7 million people within 60 minutes, or half day by horse.


So if I understand the principles correctly, the only people who could view your work would be those who live near you, and make an appointment, or visit a gallery if your work is hanging?

[Karl A]

Well, the Dogme 95 films were some of the first digital films, shot on camcorders, which was avant-garde at the time. At that time, it was believed audiences wouldn't sit through something with such poor image quality. Not to mention they were shot handheld without stabilization. How times have changed, where digital has become a serious challenge and will soon overtake film as the medium of choice in Hollywood.

But to answer the question, no I feel large format is used when image quality is of paramount consideration, so I don't see the similarity. I do, however see a similarity with the use of Holgas, Dianas, etc. As well as iPhone photography or use of consumer equipment for fine art purposes. Going all analog would be more like mainstream filmmaking in the 1990s...

[Drew Wiley]

Peter ... Yup. That's the whole idea. You're either looking at the real deal or you're not. If you're a printmaker, everything else is superfluous, really.

[Drew Wiley]

... but that "Dogme" whatever sounds like an ideological straighjacket - I can do without that too!

[Jody_S]

I've seen a couple of the movies on that list without knowing the history or even the name of the movement. A film has to stand on it's own, it wouldn't have made a difference for me. After reading the link, basically these people experimented with... making movies the way a teenager might using his dad's camcorder. The originality is either in the script (but then much was improvised, only rough outlines of characters were created prior to filming), or it was in releasing such a movie in a theater.

So is there a photography equivalent? I would say using lf gear to take vacation snapshots might come close, but only if they were on display in a gallery. The thousands of similar movies made every year by aspiring teenage filmmakers don't get grouped into this dogme95 movement.

[Jim Galli]

Randy, it's your journey, do it the way it works best for you.

Last week I drove 1700 miles on two lane roads in a Model A Ford at 47 mph. 2 me it was the time of my life. So much neat stuff to see away from the interstate. To most everyone else, the idea is ridiculous.

Don't expect any followers. Nobody else will care. And no, your art will not be more "pure".

[Tin Can]

Jim,

I'm not worried about purity and what I do, is what I like. Love your trip. I have gone from wheelchair to where I rode 500 miles on a dirt bike, on the back roads of Wisconsin last weekend! The ride was the whole thing, little bike like I rode as a kid, and my camera was forgotten. I packed a change of shirt and should have traveled even lighter. I probably averaged less than 47 mph, but I got 85 mpg. It took me years to get back on a bike. I was not injured in an accident, but rather a combination of other things.

Followers? I always walk alone, sometimes I get carried...


Randy, it's your journey, do it the way it works best for you.

Last week I drove 1700 miles on two lane roads in a Model A Ford at 47 mph. 2 me it was the time of my life. So much neat stuff to see away from the interstate. To most everyone else, the idea is ridiculous.

Don't expect any followers. Nobody else will care. And no, your art will not be more "pure".

[jp]

Self imposed restrictions are good for exercising creativity, but the ideology of the original proposal is hokey.

[Jim Galli]

Self imposed restrictions are good for exercising creativity, but the ideology of the original proposal is hokey.

Exactly. That is how I was struck but I was less succinct.

[Tin Can]

Sure, it was an odd idea, but a few good movies were produced.

All art has restrictions, for many reasons.



Self imposed restrictions are good for exercising creativity, but the ideology of the original proposal is hokey.

[Jody_S]

Self imposed restrictions are good for exercising creativity, but the ideology of the original proposal is hokey.

Yup. Like spending 20 years photographing National Parks in 8x10, and self-publishing in.... ebook form for Kindle.

[Tin Can]

Isn't that 99% of us here?


Yup. Like spending 20 years photographing National Parks in 8x10, and self-publishing in.... ebook form for Kindle.

[Jody_S]

Isn't that 99% of us here?

Yes. And your point is?

[Tin Can]

No point, I thought you had one.


Yes. And your point is?

[Ari]

All art has restrictions, for many reasons.

I don't think of it as "restrictions" but rather as defining a frame.
For instance, John Cage's 4'33" is just silence; it wasn't a piece of art until Mr Cage said "this silence will start here and end here", thus applying the frame.
The applications are limitless, but the frame must be applied.

I'm not sure if that's germane to the original post, but my 2 cents.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Why put restrictions on image making?

Why not use the available tools to realize your vision?

Consider the case where a person imposes limits to define his effort, to direct the audiences attention to a theme, a look, a single message. Most of such efforts require a series of images. Consistency and discipline can be difficult and enlightening.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Randy, it's your journey, do it the way it works best for you.

Last week I drove 1700 miles on two lane roads in a Model A Ford at 47 mph. 2 me it was the time of my life. So much neat stuff to see away from the interstate.

“Life doesn’t happen along the interstates: It’s against the law.” -- William Least Heat-Moon

It also doesn't happen at 75mph with the windows up, the air conditioning on, and the radio on.

[DrTang]

I can see it

with the exception of using a web site or facebook page to market or advertise the work and not to 'show it'

just a few small sample images - 300px x 300px or or smaller or something and not a big ol ONLINE GALLERY


the internets is perfect for marketing...less so for display

it wouldn't be anything different than having a few images on a flyer or brochure or something

[cgrab]

Interesting idea, and I can see the attraction of a "traditional" approach. Although, unfortunately, that would probably mean that I would never see one of your prints.

With regard to dogma 95, however, I think that crafting prints is about as far from their spirit as you can get, straight from the cellphone to the net seems more like it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Why ride old motorcycles. Why live in old houses. Why eat local farm food.

Because I can.

So does this mean you will continue to prolifically post on an internet forum about photography and never post a single image to share? Seems rather like believing in one god while praying to another.......just saying.

For myself, belief in or practicing, rigid ideologies was a part of my naive youth. The irony is that there is nothing of importance (except the use of film) in that vow of chastity that couldn't also be done with any IPhone movie (notice there is NO mention of film quality in the vow). Is there some virtue in doing it with film aside from nostalgia and/or posing as a "purist"?

[Drew Wiley]

I appreciate limitations and the way they can in fact induce expression, like being limited to lugging an 8x10 camera and sticking with a particular film and paper until
you master it (versus the hog-wild directionless opportunism that comes with e-territory nowadays). But for me at least, the actual object of the photograph is
going to be something more gut, subconscious, gestalt, or whatever you wanna call it. Once it get's formulaic or needs a manifesto, count me out.

[Kirk Gittings]

Drew, As I have seen a little interesting work from dedicated film photographers who limit themselves to their IPhone for a project. Putting one's self in a limiting situation can stimulate creativity by forcing one out of a rut for example. But we are not talking limited situations here AFAICS but limiting one entire way of working.

[Drew Wiley]

We recently watched the old cult classic "Chan is Missing", which deliberately attempted to look like an amateur film documentary - gritty, grainy, contrast all blown out, de-glarmorized actors, but actually very intelligently done. I've even seen some brilliant cell phone work, as probably we all have by now. But then, there are those self-imposed artsy gimmick things, like back when Lewis Baltz set up a leveling head with a 4x5, and randomly panned it around to 10-degree points of the compass with no regard to the composition per se whatsoever, or back when Misrach went thru a Louisiana swamp firing a flash gun at random, and not even being
aware of what the camera saw - based on a resume, a fishing expedition for some kind of concept-art grant. That kind of nonsense I can do without.

[Tin Can]

My question has mutated as all things do, I wrote,

'Is there a movement in Large format similar in 'SPIRIT' to dogme 95?'

I think dogme 95 was meant to open the playing field to people without vast resources, which almost all movie making requires. Digital still and video is a never ending money game, film stills far less so.

I choose to babble here and not post images, I attempt to never critique, except positively. I have failed in that a few times. I do want to share LF equipment, processing, methods, etc. I know I am not the greatest image maker, but I am a good technician and hope to inspire some younger people in my darkroom.

Large Format to me is a definite choice to restrict my image making to older methods.

I find more joy in a so so negative than any digital image I have ever taken. I have shot 35mm for 50 years, digital was a sidetrack, I am no longer pleased to use for artistic purposes.

I shoot digital snaps shots everyday, primarily for scouting, selling things and showing my life. I find it amazing how many times a day I am unloading the memory card.

As an old man becoming older, my goal is to transfer a bit of this to our descendants.

oops, too many words again...

[Kirk Gittings]

That kind of nonsense I can do without.
agreed

[paulr]

I don't see the parallel, really. The dogme 95 esthetic seems much more in line with 1960s and '70, gritty street reportage than to the work typcally done with big cameras. No overt estheticization, no narrative funny business, no camera tricks.

I don't see the dogme people worrying too much about distribution, digital or otherwise. I'm betting you can stream some of those movies.

Restrictions are fine. Whole genres of art are based on creating restrictions, many of them artificial and arbitrary. Like poetic forms, or phtotographers who refuse to crop, or the whole branch of conceptual art that's about working within seemingly impossible, arbitrary constraints—like Christian Bök's Eunoia (http://archives.chbooks.com/online_books/eunoia/a.html).

Just don't think that one set of arbitrary restraints is somehow superior to another, outside of whether or not it happens to inspire you.

I'd also suggest that constraints concerning making the work will be more profound than ones concerning its distribution and publicity.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I think dogme 95 was meant to open the playing field to people without vast resources.

Dogme requires 35mm color which is expensive.

Recall movements to promote 16mm, then Super-8.

No further comment from me. We have at least one member who has vast experience in the later.

[Tin Can]

Always a tough crowd here.

:)

[Karl A]

Nah, those guys never bothered much with real film to make their movies, even though your link says that is part of their dogma? Mostly just cheap camcorders, unknown actors, no crew to speak of. It was cool in the 1990s, because it was different. Today I respect guys like Steven Spielberg, who have stuck to their guns and continue to make movies on real 35 mm film!

[brucetaylor]

Nah, those guys never bothered much with real film to make their movies, even though your link says that is part of their dogma? Mostly just cheap camcorders, unknown actors, no crew to speak of. It was cool in the 1990s, because it was different.

Yes, that's odd, I don't recall any of the films I saw originating on 35mm film. One of the points was all shooting had to be handheld... on 35mm? One sore camera operator!

As to Mr. Wiley's comment about "Chan Is Missing" pretending to look like an amateur documentary; I'm not so sure that was the case. It was a first time (IMDB says he made something in 1975, but I don't think it saw the light of day) director/writer working with non actors as I recall, so the technical crudeness was mostly from inexperience and lack of budget (B&W 16mm, the cheapest way you could shoot and get on a big screen). However, it really worked for the story. It was a wonderful film (I remember it fondly) that launched Wayne Wang's career.

Years later the originators of the dogme 95 had abandoned the idea as I recall. I think these sorts of restrictions/dogmas can be useful in their time to foment creativity. The dogme 95 guys were reacting to what they saw as stale mainstream filmmaking, so they made a change.

[Jody_S]

I don't think of it as "restrictions" but rather as defining a frame.
For instance, John Cage's 4'33" is just silence; it wasn't a piece of art until Mr Cage said "this silence will start here and end here", thus applying the frame.
The applications are limitless, but the frame must be applied.

I'm not sure if that's germane to the original post, but my 2 cents.


For photography, the frame is that the result is an image: a 'photograph'. Either on paper/glass/tin/etc, or a digital image to be displayed on a monitor or display. For those of us who post images here, we obviously accept a digital image as a photograph. Given that we all are using film and large format cameras to produce these photographs, I would say that we have all accepted to work within a reduced frame, namely we have accepted that our 'purity' requires the use of techniques and materials that the vast majority of photographers consider obsolete. In this sense, we are all working within a purity pledge type of scenario like the Dogme 95 manifesto recommends. Witness the fact that the mods here will remove an image posted in the general forum if it was taken with other than lf gear.

Some of us are pure traditionalists insisting that all work, start to finish, must be done with technology perfected in the 1920s or 30s (though they may make an exception for their enlarger's light source or their JOBO processor). Some of us, mostly those who never really loved the darkroom process, have moved to a hybrid workflow that includes some digital manipulations that mimic traditional darkroom techniques. Does that make us (I fall in this category) less pure? Should our images be consigned to a separate part of the forum, because they're contaminated somehow, or don't live up to a manifesto? The idea is absurd, because obviously all images posted on an Internet forum were digitally worked! No, I am not insinuating the original post suggested this, though the very existence of the forum does presuppose that much of modern photography is to be excluded as impure or unworthy. The comparison to the Dogme 95 manifesto is not far-fetched. And if some of us choose to operate within personal constraints that are even more restrictive, that is their choice and I would welcome hearing what they are. Though I think refusing to post images in digital form does a dis-service to the teaching nature of this forum, however I do understand the frustration of having images stolen and mis-used.

Obviously, a 900-1200 pixel jpeg cannot possibly render adequately the depth and detail of an original print. But, everyone who posts images is in the same boat; personally, I'm trying to tweak the images I post so that the digital image looks good as a digital image, not so much that it faithfully reproduces a paper original (which I usually don't even bother to produce). But I find that participation in this sort of forum does demand that images be shown, if only for illustrative purposes. Plus, I really like looking at pictures. :cool:

[Jim Galli]

My question has mutated as all things do, I wrote,

'Is there a movement in Large format similar in 'SPIRIT' to dogme 95?'

...

Perhaps not as well defined with a manifesto like dogme 95, but I think the folks who are doing wet plate work perhaps might have some parallels. I could throw together a viable wet plate outfit for under a thousand bucks, so money is not the problem.

Have you been to my web pages. Some would say that the whole 'soft focus' phenomenon in the last 10 years has been a 'movement'. Some tell me it's a bowel movement, but I ignore them.

There are little clubs all over flickr for little movements. You can find 'petzval' groups, and F2.5 Kodak Ektar on Speed Graphic groups, and who knows what else. All of these meet your original criteria at least partially I think.

There, an attempt at an honest answer to an honest question . . . art be damned.

[Tin Can]

Thanks Jim,

I have looked at many of your web offerings, I think my favorite is the 'Galli Shutter'! I am well aware of our photographic factions and in no way meant to impugn art.





Perhaps not as well defined with a manifesto like dogme 95, but I think the folks who are doing wet plate work perhaps might have some parallels. I could throw together a viable wet plate outfit for under a thousand bucks, so money is not the problem.

Have you been to my web pages. Some would say that the whole 'soft focus' phenomenon in the last 10 years has been a 'movement'. Some tell me it's a bowel movement, but I ignore them.

There are little clubs all over flickr for little movements. You can find 'petzval' groups, and F2.5 Kodak Ektar on Speed Graphic groups, and who knows what else. All of these meet your original criteria at least partially I think.

There, an attempt at an honest answer to an honest question . . . art be damned.