pinkums and xray (happy new year)

[johnielvis]

I believe I've stumbled on the driving force behind the modern pinkum mystique, the determination to use xray film successfully and a good deal of the DIY ethic in the modern large format photographer.

It is basically this:

Rule 1 for most of these birds is: ALWAYS give yourself a gigantic hurdle to overcome so that you have a reason to fail.

Anybody see adams or weegee or weston or avendon complaining that they cant afford a pinkum or that the xray film scratches or is too high contrast or needs to be tamed? NEVER...know why? because they did what they could to FACILITATE their photography. they didn't waste their time with xray film or building their own cameras...they didn't have the TIME...they wanted to produce pics and didn't have the time to screw around---and they were COMMITTED to producing quality--otherwise they don't eat--SEE...they had some STAKE in it. If they had equipment problems they made work arounds of plain old got rid of the crap.

If adams or weegee or weston or avendon WANTED a pinkum, he'd have one, cause he knows he needed it...if he didn't need it, he'd get rid of it. If he didn't have the money right now for a pinkum, he'd FIND the money SOMEHOW.

But the gawkers of pinkums and users of xray film of today---they can't afford the pinkum. They can't afford regular film! oh woe to the starving artist that they are! Since they don't have the money, therefore they can NOT ever use a pinkum or ever use proper film.....therefore, you should only judge their photographic offerings with the weighted thumb of the handicap that they have....they should be given "extra credit" and an "a for effort"....because if they fail photographically, it is certainly not their fault, for they didn't shoot with a pinkum--even if they could afford proper film. BUT---it's NOT THEIR FAULT!!! THEY COULD NOT AFFORD THE PINKUM! THEY COULD NOT AFFORD THE FILM.....IT IS SOCIETY'S FAULT---THEY COULD BE OH SO GREAT WITH A PINKUM AND PROPER FILM...BUT ALAS...NOT TO BE....

And there's this sub-group of film users who cant afford kodak....this strange breed eschews digital in the quest for quality....quality is of PRIMARY importance to these folk.....This group readily admits the kodak produces a superior quaility product...BUT....(sad violins)...they CANT AFFORD the kodak.....(unhappy face icon)...how do these people live with themselves...they want only the best but cant afford it!!!! sad sad sad (debbie downer music)

therefore...they shoot the formapan or ilfords...they WANT to shoot the kodak...but can't....it's just too expensive...therefore they CANT GET the quality they REALLY want....all because of being unfortunate...not their fault folks!

I say to you that if you can afford to shoot ilford, you can afford to shoot kodak. just maybe a little less...how do you say that you don't compromise on quality but then, at the last stop, MUST compromise....why? may as well just shoot the digital then, since you're willing to settle....same thing in my book.

if you do this, then you're basically using money as an excuse to intentionally cripple your photography, therfore, if you don't succeed, you are not to be blamed....it's an internal psychological thing--you need an excuse to fail because you don't understand that it is perfectly ACCEPTABLE to fail. "fail" is relative anyways. you are worried about failing on someone else's terms---this is why people post pics with "damm scanner"...."not enought time"...."bit overexposed"....blah blah blah...if hyou're posting it, you're damm proud of it and why shouldn't you be...but you couldn't take criticism without an excuse---"well, yeah...I guess so....but it was xray film....still working on taming that"....

you know...if you didn't CARE what other people said then you wouldn't NEED the excuses and you could excell on your own terms.....post the pic...no excuses....then TAKE the criticism with no padding on your rear....you do it one time and you'll see you need no padding...what the hell worth is someone else's opinion to you? do you really care...is it going to change your life?

you just don't wanna ever find out that photography isn't your bag...cause then you wasted 40 years or so of your life....not to mention alll that precious money!!!! BUT if you were CRIPPLED...welll.....he did the best he could..."very impressive considering...."....See...you didn't waste your money--you WERE a "smart shopper".....you weren't stupid!!! EVERYBODY SAYS SO!

there's your consolation just before the grave....you never did what you wanted but you have an excuse.....man what a way to go.....there is still time to repent...even the "good thief" on the cross redeemed himself because he faced reality at the very last--his life was not wasted.

blah blah blah...

this is REAL LIFE....

this aint' no harrison bergon where everyone who is better than you gets artificially crippled down to your level....you've been living too long with affirmative action....

this is go time, man...this is your life.....you get ONE shot---there ain't no do-overs here!!!! forget excuses...do what you can to do your BEST and if you succeed, you succeed....if you fail...well...then that's just TEMPORARY....keep going and you'll excell or you lose interest...whatever...but let it be YOUR choice...not the choice of a cruel world that you are a victim of because you don't have money that's controlled by others therefore no pinkum and kodak so your stuff CAN'T be as good as the "fortunate son"....

but you will NEVER excell if you need a pinkum and won't buy one for the money....I'd eat beans if I really thought I needed a pinkum to get what I wanted photographically....and you'll never succeed with quality if you use second best due to the money.

like madonna says "don't go for second best baby.....put your love to the test"....

you'll never find out otherwise.

but the artificial cripples that you put on yourselves are to KEEP you from finding out....they are your OWN excuses to keep from meeting your fears/your dreams face to face. There's still time folks.....tick tock tick tock tick tock HAPPY NEW YEAR

[jp]

You're on to something, but I would have said it with a little less "ken rockwell like" hyperbole.

Clarence white made some of his best pictorialist photos when he was supporting a family and working a regular underpaying job. He's said to be able to afford 1-2 plates a week and made some very nice photos for it.

The problem you didn't touch on is that many are unable to afford the good film because too much has been spent on equipment including lenses. Much good photography can be done with a $100 monorail, a $100 ratty speed graphic, and some non-rare $100-600 lenses.

If people want to buy Pinkhams, it's a free country and they can. I think part of the appeal of the unobtainable lenses is their role in history not their usability, sort of like a valuable original civil war rifle is more apt to bring more money and be used less than a high quality uberti replica.

Photography is often for things that can't be re-shot, and I'll stick to quality film for that, avoiding any resulting false economy. I'll still play with the cheap options because it's fun, but won't depend on them. Kodak and Ilford are both quality.

Ansel Adams used a spencer port-land for his pictorialist work; a nice rare lens I've used and can't presently justify owning.

[johnielvis]

yes....it's sort of like the sacrifice thing that fragomeni was talking about.....

if you really want to do something, and you need it, you WILL get it...everyone gets what they need (not what they want---that's the definition of want = don't have it "wanting").....hey...that's the stones....."you can't always get what you want but if you TRY sometimes you get what you need...."

I just sometimes get sick of the oglers that just stare and gape and talk of what they don't know...seen a LOT of that at the bike shows....hell outside of bars looking at the kook bikes or cars or whatever---you see this at car shows...people with NO cars but they sure know every history and valuation....

it's just hypocrisy to state that you won't do digital cause you insist on quality, but you also feel that kodak is the best (say or ilford or WHATEVER)...BUT...you CAN't use THAT cause you can't afford it---it's like everyone leaves that "out" in to have an excuse to fail almost....

like everyone needs an excuse set up, you know....what the hell is the matter with "failing"....I don't understand even why people accept success on someone elses terms--who cares that your work is loved by the world if YOU don't like it---that's what pro's have to deal with I guess....

actually, getting older and more proficient in my profession--I used to hate the job because it took time away from loftier pursuits....HOWEVER....right now....I'm about the best at what I do in the world---and some of the work I do...stuff I don't even remember...I look at it and say to myself..."how did I do THAT"....that is magnifique....it IS art--you can't learn that---that's why they say...."it's an art"...everything done very well is art.

whatever you do proficiently--very well...that is ART--it doesn't have to be what is considered art by curators....say you sell carpets....you do that good enough....it's an art man.

[Thebes]

I think a lot of people with some money and little skill go on "silver bullet" chases as an excuse for their lack of skill. Their money might be better spent on film, books or even workshops.

I think a lot of the desirability of certain gear is by these mediocre photogs is seeing work which is better than theirs. Then they see online that it was made with a Pinkham or a Leica Ubercron, or whatever- and so they decide their photos would be that good if only they had the gear. In actuality a mediocre amateur photographer is rarely willing to spend 6 grand on a camera system only marginally better than a 500 dollar system. It should be no great surprise the the more often pros investing in such gear generally make better images- but beyond an adequate system for the task its 90% the shooter and 10% the gear.

Lastly, I have never considered Ilford products in any way inferior to Kodak's. They are different, but of equal quality. If your look is more Tri-X then get it. If your look is better with FP4+, then get it. Try what you can so that you know. My film normally costs less than my gas, its absurd to save a buck a sheet on 8x10 to get a product that doesn't work for your look if you spend twenty on gas for the shoot.

[johnielvis]

yeah...but I'm talking about what goes beyond the silver bullet

it's like photography is secondary almost and the unattainable object is primary....

BUT....they can likely swing GETTING the "unattainable"....but they don't--they complain instead about not being able to get it, when they can...will it be easy? no...but they can get it.....

Then they continue lamenting their (false) inability to obtain said item(s) and basically use THAT as a way to "blame the equipment" that is artificially crippling them.

hell--if you keep at it, you can make ANYTHING work--but they rest on the "cant afford it, so it will NEVER work" cop out....and it satisfies them...

BUT they KEEP on going ON and ON and ON about it.....

just like me now.....

[Vaughn]

Who goes on and on about it? The one or two people might occasionally mention something about it out of the many thousands who post here?

Bloody non-issue, if you ask me. An excuse to create hot air.

[johnielvis]

opinion noted

thank you for your helpful contribution to my topic