Have you ever printed colour? I haven't done it in 10 years unfortunately but in retrospect it was by far the most enjoyable aspect of my degree for me. It is very finicky (doing everything in complete darkness, having to adjust for 4 colour filters and exposure time when test printing and burning in etc is hard) but it wasn't too hard to get good quality prints once you'd practiced a bit - obviously I was not a master printer or anything ha. We had a processor you fed your exposed paper into and about 30 seconds/1 minute later it came out as a print. We did have technicians to look after all of this though. If I was rich and had the space I'd get back into it straight away as it is so satisfying.
I think time and digital has scrambled your brain, there are of course 3 colour filters.
Pretty much, as pretentious as it sounds I think it's as much about showing the world what you see rather than what was there. The French decisive moment and surrealist influences are a bit ott for my tastes. I like photography that appears to be a dialogue not a statement.
I'd also like to start getting into film a bit more seriously. I've dabbled a bit in the past. Just messing around with consumer film and getting it developed at Costco and whatnot. I have dozens of cameras that I once got for free. Three decent SLRs that definitely work with some normal primes and a few rangefinders which may not work 100%. Pretty much everything I have is 35mm. Love colour too much to work in b/w at this point. I'm obsessed with colour right now.
Can anyone point me to a book or guide or something to get me started? I prefer to learn from one single source to begin, instead of running around google and reading all the differing opinions, getting all confused and paralysed. Too much scattered information is overwhelming. I'm looking for a cheat sheet, I guess.
Watched a video of Eggleston working. He looks at a scene, studies it for a second and then quickly raises the camera to his eye and "bang" that's it. One of his rules is that he only takes one single frame of any particular scene. He said he used to take a whole pile and then get frustrated after printing and trying to decide which angle is the "best". I struggle with the same thing constantly. I take 20 frames of one scene and then don't even look at them because it's too exhausting to whittle them down. Then, no matter what my choice is, I always second-guess it, because I have another one in my brain. Like over-researching which headphones to buy. I feel like film will force me to dial that biz back a bit. So, any specific recommendations would be A+, thanks.
What's the difference?
First notion look up the visual elements of photography but please, please, please realise these are guides of what can be interesting. What frustrates me with most photo clubs is how obsessed they get with them!
My tip would be if you use a slower camera to set up you'll shoot less frames and take more time over composition and what attracts you to a shot.
The formats are in many way very different tools you wouldn't use a hammer if you needed a saw.
As a general rule of thumb 1 in 2 of my 5x4 shots would be good enough to exhibit. 1 frame in 3 rolls of medium format and 1 in 4 rolls of 35mm. Besides 5x4 I often shoot three frames of something if possible. Editing is a skill in itself. Putting a series of images together is a complex journey.
If you like Eggleston, you should check out August Sander's images. Whilst I understand colour is very alluring there is good reason why people start with b&w on most photography courses still.
If you insist on going down the colour route also look at Bruce Davidson, Subway or Philip-Lorca diCorcia Sunset Blvd work is spine tingling.