 |
Worthless_Person [deleted] says:
Could you give us an example to go off of?
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Even if you don't submit the roll to the magazine, it'd be cool to see contact sheet scans of the films with this same goal.
I shoot black and white though.. Also I'm not interested in any of those prizes.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The prizes suxx0r! Well IMHO anyway. They're not exactly useful for film shooters - more aimed at the digital market...
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The prizes suxx0r! Well IMHO anyway. They're not exactly useful for film shooters - more aimed at the digital market...
But I might try it anyway, just to see what I come up with. But with different film. Maybe Neopan 1600 since I just bought a roll...
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This contest smells like a poorly paying job.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well I thought it sounded an interesting idea. Would be nice to see the details of how the IPR is handled on submissions, though (maybe I just can't find it).
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Not much choice in films we can use, now is there? Honestly, I don't shoot color print film anymore.
Oh well. I've never wanted a lensbaby anyway.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
 I've only ever seen one lens baby photo that I've liked. Even then I still wasn't keen on the effect and thought the image would have been better without it.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
What if we shoot 120.... Do we get to use 3 rolls?
It also seems a little odd to me that this contest is treating the shooting of film like some kind of gimmick or novelty....
I'm gunna stop now before I start ranting.....
Originally posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Travis Smith edited this topic 8 months ago.
|
|
What if we shoot 120.... Do we get to use 3 rolls?
And what about us large format shooters?
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I could sell the lens baby and buy another vintage rangefinder.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Um. Sorry you don't like the prizes.
Re: "This contest smells like a poorly paying job," I'm not sure how to respond to that except to say that we certainly aren't making any money off of this. This is for the love of photography, not to make money.
Re: "It also seems a little odd to me that this contest is treating the shooting of film like some kind of gimmick or novelty...." I'm sorry it comes off that way. Our purpose is to stimulate people to produced considered images, rather than just riffing off photos.
Yes, you can shoot B&W and use large/medium format.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
'In the analog era, when we had to pay to see what we shot, we were more careful when we took photographs. This forced a discipline that is hard to imagine today'
um, maybe posting this competition in digital groups would be more appropriate?
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
So you don't want us to process our own film and send you the negatives? That's strange.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"maybe posting this competition in digital groups would be more appropriate? "
Possibly. I just thought this might interest film photographers. Sorry.
"So you don't want us to process our own film and send you the negatives?"
Because it is a contest, we need to control the final entries to ensure that they have been produced according to the rules. All negatives will be returned to the photographers.
Originally posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
beerzie boy edited this topic 8 months ago.
|
 |
i might play, just for the fun of it prizes arnt everything
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Also, I should note that ownership of all images is retained by the artists.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I appreciate the offer,but I think that most of the people who use this forum are film and vintage camera fanatics,and those prizes all seem digital based,which is anathema to the majority of us.
Thanks but no thanks.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
What the hell is conscious intentionality? Surely if you do something intentionally, then it is done conciously?! It seems like a double positive statement, or something that arty types make up to justify their crap art. Not saying that Steven Shore is crap but you know what I mean....hopefully...it's just two words put together that mean nothing!
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
> those prizes all seem digital based
Hmm. I guess I'm a little taken aback by that comment. Aren't all of you using a system that is digital-based right now? The prizes are all tools to deliver photos -- taken with anything -- in ways very similar to how photos are presented here at Flickr.
Thanks for your comment, and I hope you change your mind!
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
>What the hell is conscious intentionality?
I understand what you are driving at, but I rather like the concept. Perhaps the full explanation of our intentions is more specific, or you could read the interview with Shore. It might not change your mind, but I think he has some valid and interesting ideas.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It's not a bad idea. And I think there is some room for some documentary photography, especially around the holidays. Take for instance, the shelters feeding the poor & the hungry. The factories with their for sale signs. The stores with their 'closed due to lack of business' signs. The other half of the world that isn't "butterflies and rainbows". Not everyone is safe and secure. Just having the money for a film camera is saying something that we, most of us, take for granted.
So... that's my two cents worth & if I had the b*lls I'd go down to the homeless shelter and document the hell out of it. They are in desperate need of money, especially now.
The end.
Oh, and one other thing. Those prizes SUCK!
have a nice day..........
www.flickr.com/groups/stephen_shore/
Originally posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
luvdatrodinal edited this topic 8 months ago.
|
|
Thanks for sharing, luvdatrodinal!
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I actually think this is a great idea. I love the concept of stating your case in advance. It makes it more about the images than the medium, to my mind.
Us film shooters can be a geeky bunch, I think this sort of thing makes a great change from fretting about emulsions, exposure compensation and dev times - it puts the focus onto the artistic side of things, the story telling, and that appeals to me.
Anything to get people thinking a bit more creatively is a good thing in my book, there's a tendency for amateurs (myself included!) to get hung up on the tools and forget about the final artistic product.
Now, about those awful prizes... ;-)
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
If you change those prizes,I'd be tempted.
Like cameraleather.com gift certificates or something......
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Prizes aren't everything but I have to say I'd have no use for anything but the lensbaby. Just because I use flickr/the web doesn't mean I'm interested in software to create slides shows etc. It's too far removed from how I like to appreciate photography - meaning on a wall or in a well-made/printed book or magazine.
'In the analog era, when we had to pay to see what we shot, we were more careful when we took photographs. This forced a discipline that is hard to imagine today'
As it's written, it's potentially off-putting for both film and digital shooters. I read it as the analog era is past by using the past tense (uhm...NO). It also reads that digital shooters have a lack of discipline and are not careful in their approach - that's a broad generalization and a digital group given the same invite might give you a tough time too.
The lack of film selection makes me wonder - why all Kodak c-41 stuff?
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
the prizes are naff, but i do like the idea of the challenge.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
>If you change those prizes
These prizes were donated by sponsors, so at this point, I can't change them. And we're not a for-profit organization, so we don't have the funds to change them. Sorry. At any rate, I won't say any more about them, as I it is really not the purpose for proposing the challenge.
> it's potentially off-putting for both film and digital shooters
Well, we certainly didn't mean to offend! I agree that film will be around for a long while, and I am glad, both as a photographer and a viewer of photography. But I think that the observations on the state of photography are valid in the general sense, particularly in regards to the lack of restrain brought on by the ease and affordability of digital; I know about this, because I am guilty of it, too.
As far as the film selection, we have broadened that to include other formats.
Originally posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
beerzie boy edited this topic 8 months ago.
|
 |
its a cool concept. i dont really like the idea of us having to write about our thing. and the prizes kinda do suck. i dont mean to be arrogant or unappreaciative. but thats like going to a muscle car race and the prize is like free low octane gas for life when half of the cars use high octane you know. doesnt really help us at all. i for one dont present my photos in slide shows. if i wanted that i would get a slide projector and shoot slide. i dont need that type of stuff since most of us shoot for ourselves. i think film itself would be a good prize. or maybe some new developing products or printing product.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I really liked the idea of this and had a good think about it out on my walk last night, but I'm not sure I an enter, is this open to UK photographers or just US ones?
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Open to all photographers.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I think it's a great idea.
I also think the contest page should state all film types and sizes are welcomed.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Wow - taking a beating here, aren't you beerzie boy?
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Fortunately, I have a thick skin. I truly was hoping people would view this as an opportunity to get creative and have some fun...despite the fact that the naff prizes SUCK.
Originally posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
beerzie boy edited this topic 8 months ago.
|
 |
I just read this stream: its come to my attention that there are a lot of
a-- holes in this group;
I didn't realize that flickr (and inclusive groups) was anything but leisure-time activities-- IF Y'ALL DON'T LIKE THE PRIZE, WHY DON'T YOU BOW OUT OF THE CONTEST AND LEAVE IT TO THE REST OF US THAT ARE GAME? Thanks much!
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I've never come across such a bunch of whingers in my life. What's the point in moaning about free stuff that other people are handing out? You get free film and free prizes FFS.
Is this group always this friendly and easy-going? :)
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
cool will start writing up and sudmit my proposal soonish,
I think the comp sounds like a great idea, but it tends to be the way i work anyway, although i also tend to shoot 3-4 rolls a day, but thats the nature of me. bit more considered this week as i'm out with the fuji 6x7
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Having looked at the Shore interview, I reckon I've got a handle on this 'concious intentionality' thing... simply put, I *think* it's the art of taking the mundane and making it less mundane and more meaningful through the application of the photographer's eye.
Happy to be corrected on that.
I suppose I'm just wondering why the focus on film (unless the magazine's cut a deal with someone/has found a load of rolls sat in the back of a cupboard :) ) when Shore is extolling the virtues of digital? 36 exposures is a nice enough number, I guess.
Anyway. My AE-1 and I will be putting our heads together to come up with something... I thank all of you who are being put off by the prizes, it'll give us a better chance of getting some work in print. :)
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
i like this idea because theirs so many people who shoot digital who take about 10 pictures of the same thing because they have no idea of what settings to use.
then they spend about 3 weeks in photoshop.
people who shoot film, know to work their cammras.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
OK maybe time to launch a Rollei contest.
Film analog, all formats (35mm, 120 roll film, sheet film) , except 110, 126, 127, aps.
B&W and CN. Only real prints accepted from a minimum till a maximum format.
Produced on Rollei/Maco film.
We can also extend this to a Rollei AND Foma contest if there is also interest for this film/photo paper manufacturer. Also all the same film formats and we can take the ultimate Foma papers as obliged for this combined contest.
Prices: Well, I think at least US$ 500,00 to be a bit more serious in this Flickr environment.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I like the idea of proposing an idea. Always gives you more clarity in your shooting and creativity. No matter what people think, creative folks like restrictions. But yeah, I just finished a Bachelor of Design so I don't need any of those programs but the lens-baby, looks like a bit of fun! But I'm not here to diss the prizes, the idea is good; a challenge is always welcome. I reckon I'll need to shoot some test shots though because I've never used any of that film except for the monochrome colour-processed film. Cheers again!
P.S. Red Jesus, WHAA!? I know how to use my digital and I don't spend 3 weeks in photoshop, maybe 20 minutes for a really involved image with several layers, different exposures and complex masking! Any longer and your just slow. Time is money, thats why people go digital :D
P.S.S. I love film!
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think Fotohuis is on to something. I'd even settle for a freezer full of Rollei film! (especially the IR 120) But, being unemployed - I'd take the cash!
Originally posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
luvdatrodinal edited this topic 8 months ago.
|
|
And the thing that slows you down is not whether it's digital or analog. It's the type of camera. My Nikon F100 is incredibly 'thought-less'. and equally as fast +/- than the Nikon D200. I think that just the simple act of manually having to advance the film and manually focus instead of it being electronic has a lot to do with the connection between photographer and machine.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
johnny p: i also know to work my digital, im saying film makes you learn how to use your cammra better, people who only shoot digital, quite a few of them dont know how to use their cammras
and 3 weeks was me pushing a point.
luvdatrodina: i agree about the connection element
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
I Shoot Film /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to I Shoot Film discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to del.icio.us