Is the obsession with analogue gearing an obstacle to art?

[Robert Opheim]

There are endless tools in the process and production of various forms of Art. Why would traditional photography be any different? Digital photography as an example has endless tools as well: cameras, lenses, lights, monitors, cpu's, programs, printers, materials, batteries, etc. The digital equipment and programs also have a built in time limit to their usability - perhaps 5 years?

Other Art forms have a lot of "gearing" as well depending on the Art form. Some of the forms have had a plus with computer and internet access - such as music recording, producing and sales - often made and sold by the artist directly. Film making is another Art form that is had some benefits with the digital processes. Some Art forms have little to do with the digital age - and still are timeless.

[GoodOldNorm]

Equipment is only an obstical if you don't know how to use it to its full potential.

[Alan Klein]

IDK I think that people who use film have a lot of envy and distaste for people who don't want to bother slaving in a darkroom to make their photographs (or don't have the time, money or space to make a darkroom), and they seem to have some sort of process-complex. I read plenty of words from chest thumping zealot/haters on another website for 19 years .... photography is a big tent plenty of room for everyone no matter how the deal with window glare or media choices.

LOL. If you ask me, the problem isn't process (arcane or modern) but people don't edit (that's the art, not moving to the left or being stingy with exposures). ... and then they make people look at their unedited selection of images. There's plenty of terrible photography to go around, but whatever, it seems to keep people from blowing a gasket so not sure why any of it matters, I just don't bother looking if I don't have to.

A perfectly clear picture of a fuzzy idea. If the photographer moved a foot to the left, the picture would be great, something no amount of darkroom or digital editing can help.

[h2oman]

IDK I think that people who use film have a lot of envy and distaste for people who don't want to bother slaving in a darkroom to make their photographs (or don't have the time, money or space to make a darkroom), and they seem to have some sort of process-complex. I read plenty of words from chest thumping zealot/haters on another website for 19 years .... photography is a big tent plenty of room for everyone no matter how the deal with window glare or media choices.

LOL. If you ask me, the problem isn't process (arcane or modern) but people don't edit (that's the art, not moving to the left or being stingy with exposures). ... and then they make people look at their unedited selection of images. There's plenty of terrible photography to go around, but whatever, it seems to keep people from blowing a gasket so not sure why any of it matters, I just don't bother looking if I don't have to.

+1, and I plead guilty at times!

[jnantz]

A perfectly clear picture of a fuzzy idea. If the photographer moved a foot to the left, the picture would be great, something no amount of darkroom or digital editing can help.

maybe?

sorry my post made no sense anymore because the post it replied about is no longer here. carry on..

[MTGSeattle]

I came up in photography pre-digital. The Kodak DCS models arrived while I was a sophomore in college. I have done the complete film to digital change once. I went out and tried to be slow and methodical and contemplative with the dslr on many occasions only to realize that I was not taking advantage of what digital affords one (immediate results, and to an extent in-camera trickery) I was always left feeling that my outings with digital only were fake in some way. I missed the slightly unknown aspect of processing my film and seeing if I goofed or was rewarded. (Martin Parr has said 10 good images a year is a good year for him).
I know there are geographic constraints, but we all generally have options these days; if you don't like the time spent processing film, have a lab undertake that part of your workflow. Have them do "quick" scans for you as well. You can view a digital contact sheet and gauge whether any frames deserve a more concerted effort. As photographers it is way too easy (especially if you watch youtube at all), to get bogged down in equipment=results equations. The more time you bounce between formats and gear, the less time you have learning the idiosyncrasies and benefits of a given camera. I tend to question the folks who dabble in all sorts of developers unless they have exhausted the capabilities or simply cannot get the results they need from one. I feel like it takes a lot of film to truly exhaust the possibilities of a given film and developer combo.
My first cameras were some combination of Kodak brownie hawkeye and an Imperial savoy "toy" camera. High-school photography class was school supplied Pentax k-1000, A Hasselblad for a studio assignment (that did not leave school grounds), and my Dad's Minolta xg-7. Post high-school, I bought myself a canon eos Elan-II. That carried me into college, where I dropped back to a k-1000 for a bit but checked out the school twin-lens and 4x5 here and there. I jumped to a Mamiya 645 system, and stuck with that until I had a chance to borrow a Mamiya 6 for a day. I promptly "went square," and have only looked back a couple of times due to financial reasons. My first 4x5 was a very cheap Speed Graphic with a dead focal plane shutter that I stripped down and painted black. You have to find a camera that "feels right" for you, one that you can operate as second nature so that your thinking is all about your intent and not about your gear.
I started typing this before I read all 12 pages. Some of what I have said has been said earlier and better by other members. To consolidate, I think the OP needs to simply get out there and burn some film and see what feels "right."
I need to take my own advice.

[Peter Lewin]

I really dislike the title of this thread, because it ultimately comes back to our much debated question, "what is art?" What I would say, and I think most will agree, is that digital processing allows more degrees of freedom than analog. There are lots of tools available in PS that we simply cannot duplicate in the darkroom, which means simply that you have more options digitally than you do in analog. So if, using your creativity, you have an idea that you can only express digitally, then yes, an "obsession with analog gearing" will be an obstacle to your art. On the other hand, if you can create the image you want in your darkroom, then the obsession did not limit you.

[SergeyT]

Equipment is only an obstical if you don't know how to use it to its full potential.

...and/or using it for serving not its intended purposes

[SergeyT]

...I tend to question the folks who dabble in all sorts of developers unless they have exhausted the capabilities or simply cannot get the results they need from one. I feel like it takes a lot of film to truly exhaust the possibilities of a given film and developer combo...

I agree. In some other thread I wrote that I always use the same developer and other chemicals and their formulas\times for any B&W film that I happened to expose images on. They just "work" for me. Never ever wanted to try anything different, but may if what I am using now will no longer be available.
And although I have tried and still use multiple film emulsions in both color and B&W and a variety of cameras I am at a point where:
* emulsion type does not really matter to me. I can make color images/prints with both color film and with B&W film (tri-chrome process), I can make B&W prints with both B&W and color film, etc.
* the camera type and film(sensor) format mostly don't matter. If I have to I will do well with one working camera and one lense in anything from 35mm through 4x5
* there is nothing wrong with not printing in a dark room. There is nothing wrong with making silver-gelatin prints neither
* if there would be no more film to shot - I will switch to digital and unlikely to lose or gain much
Lack of inspiration, vision or physical abilities would be the major obstacles in my relation with photography or any other activity

[jnantz]

...and/or using it for serving not its intended purposes

what would the unintended use of a camera, lens, film, dark cloth tripod photochemistry &c be?