An early Friday post...

elven

I've just been writing on my blog but thought I'd see if anyone round here had thoughts on the issue - about the 'craft' element in photography.

It'll probably sink like a lead balloon, but I'll give it a shot anyway...

I’ve been reading Art & Fear, and it has been striking a lot of chords with me on a very basic level.

Unfortunately, it also hits a slightly ‘off’ note. I’ve casually mentioned before that I’ve enjoyed photography a lot more since going digital because when I shot slide film, once the exposure was made, my job was done. I sent them off for development and received them as a finished article (I’m going to ignore my own E6 processing in terms of this discussion). I never did get a decent print made, although after getting a couple of straight prints I was very disappointed by the lack of vibrance in the colours I was originally so amazed by (Velvia, of course) and although I liked the sound of cibachrome, it was entirely too much hassle and too much expense, for the half hearted postcard shots I had produced.

Now I consider photoshop to be at least half of the process of my photography at the moment - and that’s not to say that the composition and pre-exposure work is 50% - I’m just leaving out the other 30% that would be taken up by the nightmare that I haven’t started getting into yet: printing…

Anyway, as much as I consider photoshoppery to be a craft of its own merit, and even more so than development in the darkroom because it’s not global - I apply the changes to each individual image and even then, to different areas of the image, in essence doing something akin to painting - it still has a certain clinical feel to it. My judgement of a good application of photoshop is when it’s invisible in the final work - a million miles away from admiring brush strokes on a painting or stitchwork on an embroidered panel! I spend my time at the computer trying to avoid pixellation, colour casts, halos, posterisation, and noise, trying almost to pretend that I haven’t been messing with the pixels, as originally captured.

It has highlighted the lack of ‘craft’ that I’m feeling is involved in my photography, less than if I was painting or sculpting. I wonder if I would feel the same way of doing printing in a darkrooom? I think I’ll find that out soon enough, if I can produce some decent (obviously the term is applied loosely in this instance) negatives with my new Holga, I’ll be having a go at it anyway!

I think this may be related in some way to an urge I’ve been having for some time now to get involved in alternative printing processes, from using watercolour paper to doing all sorts of transfers and generally just making a bit of a mess in the process of producing a final print. Something that I don’t have to be ashamed of, and try to hide in the resulting image… rather something that actually gives it more life, and more of myself, the mark of my own hands.

As a quick final note, I’d also like to consider how people think a photographer can put more of themselves into their photographs at the point of creation, at the point of exposure? What is it that shows the mark of your own hands on an original capture, pre-process/printing?

What’s the ‘craft’ element in photography, besides the work of producing a print?

thebaz

i suppose we'r all different, but i don't like the post processing part of photography, i like going out there capturing something , hopefully meaningfull and imaginative and real , and then using ps to shrapen it up, and tidy it up a bit.

Maybe its cause i don't know how to use it too good, and don't want to get bogged down with trying to create the perfect image, when perfection is impossible, but i find the over -use of ps , creates a synthetic , unreal look that i don't like .
But as i go on in photograpohy , i realise i must get to learn it better , but for me its like learning irish or difficult maths at school.

ThOnda

It's the picture what counts. I don't care if you had used camera, canvas or hammer.
For all techniques, you need knowledge, talent and some imagination. Everybody can take pencil and paper od point-and-shoot camera. It is the final product, your feelings you have looking at the picture.
Do you think that post-stamp is "art" because it is small? What about Swiss watches and chinese wathces? What's the difference? The same difference as between two pictures hanging on the wall (or posted on the internet). Even from the same person. One is interesting for you and the second not. Why? Nobody know, maybe your shrink does :-)

Paulw

Oh what a topic.

Ok, firstly, I'm only learning. I consider myself a beginner, even though I've been using my SLR for 2 years now.

The main thing about photography is about being in the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment.

Then it's about capturing that image. In many instances, the digital impression captured of the scene does not match your memory of the scene when you get to your computer. To that end, we use Photoshop or similar to adjust the image. It's about adjusting the light, tones, vibrance, saturation, angle etc in the image. These are all necessary. They are (and always have been) part of photography.

Sometimes I find that I have very little to do with the digital image. Simple adjustments and the image is ready to post. At other times, I find that if I put a good bit of work in to the digital processing in Photoshop, then the image comes more to life than what I thought I had captured.

My images are mine. I look online and I can spot something that is mine. In the same way, people have styles. Some images you can guess who owns them just from the image. Some are in to macro, some wildlife, some people, some landscape.

The bottom line is that photography, like any art, is personal and subjective. I may not like a photo you take, and you may not like a photo I take, but that in no way means that the photo is not good nor artistic.

Trust how you feel, and that is how you express yourself in your photography.

elven

Ah... it's the picture that counts to the viewer, the consumer, but what about the creator? That's what I'm interested in. I'm talking about the process of photography, in terms of the photographer, and what they/we get out of it. I will admit that I do it more for the process than the result - which is why I spend more time shooting than looking at the photos I took 2 years ago.

But that's a whole other thread...

Baz, do you think that the craft element of photography is just in your selection of subject, then? Do you consider that as a craft?

Paulw

Is the creator not the only consumer that really counts? Yes, we always hope that others will like what we produce, but isn't the bottom line that we like what we capture?

The craft - spotting something you consider worth photographing, capturing that image, and making that image in to a photograph you want to show others (no matter what you need to do to "make" the image).

Some people "have an eye for photography". They see things that others might miss. That's special to each person, to each artist.

We all strive to improve, to learn, to be more creative. We look forward rather than back.

Just my wandering thoughts on the subject. :rolleyes:

elven

Paulw wrote:

Some are in to macro, some wildlife, some people, some landscape.

While I think that's also a whole other topic, I have to make the point that I don't think photographers, or their style, should necessarily be classified by their choice of subject... you know how much I like being referred to as 'Macro Girl'

The bottom line is that photography, like any art, is personal and subjective. I may not like a photo you take, and you may not like a photo I take, but that in no way means that the photo is not good nor artistic.

Trust how you feel, and that is how you express yourself in your photography.

In terms of the subjective-ness, then, what do you take as the most enjoyable and creative aspect of it, as a process? Choosing lenses? Finding a point of view?

Calina

the moment when you run through the images you've just pulled from the camera to see a) are any of them any good and b) what can you do with any of them to make it good.

The bit I don't like is when my computer slowly grinds to a halt as I start processing stuff.

Paulw

I didn't mean to clasify people by their type of photography, but some people have a clearer talent for certain types of images. Your nickname comes out of respect and admiration rather than anything else. It's a clear compliment more than any form of insult.

Aside from that, for me, I really enjoy being out. I know my photography is limited, but I don't care. I see things but can seldom capture them the way I want. Is it composition, lens choice, camera settings, location, I really don't know. I like learning and having fun.

I get a special thrill when I go home and find an image that really captured a moment or scene. Some were there before I took the image, some will last long after I walked away, but a select few images were just a point in time that I managed to capture.

One of my most treasured photos was taken at a friend's wedding in Italy. There's a whole story to the photo (I won't bore people with it), but that one image, on the morning of the wedding, summed up my friend and the whole wedding. It made me feel good about photography and captured a special moment of their wedding.

trooney

Isn't this pretty much along the same lines as when you show a photo to somebody (non-photog types) and tell them what you did with levels or what blemish you removed and their attitude changes to one of:

"oh, why didn't you say. You didn't take this photo, you just photoshopped it into being a good shot. Not the same at all. Must be piss easy if you did it with SW. Sure where's the skill in that"

But its all still down to your own eye and the changes you make in processing. Its all still part of your creative juices. The craft element is your own view on the world. As a writer uses a particular selection of words to articulate what they're trying to say... the photographer uses light/shade/composition/camera settings to 'articulate' their point of view when recording a moment. That there is no tactile end result shouldn't take from the creation of something new. I'd guess that this type of feeling is maybe related to how young digital photography really is. Hardly a decade old - unless you had buckets of cash - so its easy try apply everything that seems natural with film to digital, but this isn't always right.

thebaz

elven wrote:

Baz, do you think that the craft element of photography is just in your selection of subject, then? Do you consider that as a craft?

Pretty much - about once a month i take a shot , that i consider good -- combination, of luck , expression , and crucially timing , and also getting the bare essentials right -- usually these rare photo's need little post processing , but they occur about once in a 1000 shots or so -- i guess thats why i do it, pretty much every day now, trying to get one that i'm really happy with

The most frustrating thing though is, capturing something special, and getting some basic essential wrong , which no amount of photoshopping will restore, without that artificial look.

Valentia

The most satisifying aspect of photography for me is recognising the moment.

That moment could be anything and is often dependent on my mood at a given time. The sense of satisfaction is enhanced when I am able to craft that moment into something that is presentable to others in such a way that some of my enthusism for it is transferred onto them through the final image. Whether that is through a print or on screen. I see the process as being one, from the conception to the birth of the image. The composition, lens, apperture, shutter speed, developing (processing) and presentation are all part of the one process. The "craft" is the skill and imagination to fulfill whatever vision you had when the opportunity presented itself.

Where a lot of photographs fall down is in not maximising the potential at the very beginning. Framing, exposure, DOF etc. Getting that bit right makes the other parts of the task so much easier.

Seeing the shot in the first place is not as easy as some think.

mikeanywhere

Paulw wrote:

Is the creator not the only consumer that really counts? Yes, we always hope that others will like what we produce, but isn't the bottom line that we like what we capture?

I agree and disagree - bear with me and I'll explain why.

I agree if you are looking at it from a general public point of view that you take an image that you like and if its good enough to get printed then so be it.

Where I disagree is if you are taking a shot for a particular idea or opportunity in mind and not looking at it from your own personal point of view, more like what will sell.

Paulw

Mike - I think that really separates a commercial photographer from all other photographers.

A commercial photographer ultimately cares about what others will like, and hence what will sell. But, surely they still need to enjoy the image themselves first?

I'd say that over 99% of the people on the boards here do it 99% of the time out of pure enjoyment. It's a passion that can give financial rewards.

No matter what you take the images for, it's about enjoying what you do. No matter how skilled and talented you are, if you don't enjoy it, then you won't get the rewards. You need to enjoy photography, and enjoy the image you capture for it to be worth anything.

sineadw

Now my head *really* hurts

The more I use the camera and photoshop the more I realise how little I know, so not sure I'm near the craft level yet. I think though the essence of it is using light as your canvas and your paintbrush. Therefore I guess its a lot less tangible . My own experience hasn't stretched to darkroom or printing yet so I have no feel for the hands-on, I created the thing I hold in my hands thing. Is that what you mean by craft? Choosing lenses and aperture values the way a more traditional artist would choose oil/water/acrylic and brush type/blade etc..

As for putting more of me into it? Hmmm... I'm not sure on that one. I'm trying at the moment not to just mimic what I see as decent photography, to come up with framing and composing the shot with my own eye rather than what I (subconsciously) think others would do. But usually what good photographers do is what looks good! Been struggling with that one.

Climbing back under the duvet for a while.

Morlar

I agree that photography is roughly 50% taking pictures and the rest processing & printing whether through actual darkrooms or virtual digital ones with raw convertors and photoshop. Having said that . ..

I think photography is just not an arts and crafts-ey type of thing. The days of darkrooms were more tactile (bordering on sensory overload despite the darkness) when compared to working on desktop workstations in photoshop. I dont see the point in people getting sentimental about a method of doing something. Its the something that matters not the method. I started out using a darkroom for developing and printing years ago and cant say that I miss it one little bit. There is now more control in raw/photoshop than I know how to use so why anyone would want to un-evolve the method of what it is that they are doing is beyond me.

Valentia

Morlar wrote:

I started out using a darkroom for developing and printing years ago and cant say that I miss it one little bit.

I couldn't agree more.

I meant to say in my previous post where I mentioned where "a lot of photographs fall down" that I include myself big time in that statement.

Morlar

I cant help thinking that these discussions would make more sense (=less headache-age) if they took place in a pub around a big wooden table with lots of finger pointing and 'and another thing' s ! ! Seriously by the time I write a reply the original post doesnt make sense anymore then when that does make sense again my reply doesnt - maybe its just me but these seem to get overly complicated very quickly.

elven

Morlar wrote:

I dont see the point in people getting sentimental about a method of doing something. Its the something that matters not the method.

I'd like to think it isn't sentimentality, not talking about darkrooms for awkwardness and romanticism, more just trying to relate it to that feeling of creating that I get when I paint, or use clay, or something like that. There's definitely a tendency to say that because it's more difficult to do it a certain way, it requires more skill, and so you get more satusfaction but I'm not really into that either.

In terms of the method mattering, well, it does to me because I'm not doing this for the sake of having pictures to leave behind when I die. I'm doing it because I enjoy the actual process, and I suddently realised that something was missing from the process, for me, and I'm trying to figure out what it might be or how I might find it.

Where Valentia is talking about capturing the moment, I feel only applies to photos that are mostly of people - am I capturing a moment of a bunch of leaves in a pond? Maybe it's just a different type of photography.

Maybe the creativity mostly happens in the field, in that magic feeling you get when you're out, walking about, spotting compositions and trying to make them happen in the camera... maybe that's why I enjoy the taking much more than looking at the final result. It just seems so effortless, though, almost too easy sometimes...

Paulw

I also think a few pints would help open our minds to different ways to discuss this point. I'm not sure it would make any more sense, but it would make it less complicated. ..... I think .....

elven

Maybe that's why it should be a friday thread after all

Who's free tomorrow after work???

Valentia

elven wrote:

Where Valentia is talking about capturing the moment, I feel only applies to photos that are mostly of people - am I capturing a moment of a bunch of leaves in a pond? Maybe it's just a different type of photography.

Believe it or not the thought of people didn't enter my head. By moment meant "moment in my head". That split second when we see the finished photo before we even take it. That moment includes where we are standing, the view that we have of it, the light, the context, the shapes blah dee blah......... and the mood we are in. There is an awful lot of luck attached to photographing people, in a candid way at least, so it is not as methodical I think, though that said, there is a fair technical element too. I believe that the craft involved in any art is in having the technical ability to create a vision of what "they see". That includes their emotional response to it as well as the physical representation of the subject itself. That's what makes a piece of art individual and unique.

By jazus I'm in rembling form today and we still have to work tomorrow.

Warning to those who may have dozed off: TODAY IS NOT FRIDAY.

Morlar

elven wrote:

Maybe that's why it should be a friday thread after all

Who's free tomorrow after work???

I can do that - if its warm out a beergarden would be just perfect.

elven

Warm...!? Have you seen the bottom of my trousers after traipsing through puddles at lunchtime?

Valentia:

"That moment includes where we are standing, the view that we have of it, the light, the context, the shapes blah dee blah......... and the mood we are in."

Now *that's* a language I understand. I think you may be onto something with that, hmmm yes indeed.

Calina

Fi on you, boardsphotobeers on a Friday when I've to collect someone from the airport at 6 or so....argghhh....

that being said - regarding what I think is the subject at hand:

1) I take the photograph
2) I spend sometime post processing. The time involved depends on the photograph and the processing. Some come straight off the camera (Heresy, thy name is Calina), some don't. Some composite shots, they take a while between being stitched, converted to black and white and all that.

3) All these things require some thought, some insight to be done. One of the places to start looking for your craft is to identify what you do differently now to what you did sometime ago - for me the timeline is when I went DSLR in May 2006 to date. I can pick out lots of different things both at picture creation point and post processing point. I can also be sure that I probably look at things differently (way to prove that would be to take some of the older photographs and do to them now what I do to new photographs).

Deep within me I strongly believe that there is some sort of synergy at play - that there are many constituent parts which separately do not make up a great deal (a little heretical there) but that the sum of them is everything you can't necessarily imagine in the morning when you get up.

This is a case in point:



I rely on chance for these moments, I grab the moment, I wait six hours until I get home praying that a) the ISO value was okay b) the DOF was okay c) the exposure settings weren't too far wrong and d) the CF card doesn't fail and then I spend an hour carefully turning it into a multilayered black and white colour selection piece. You don't want the magic wand details...

If you like, the whole process is a craft in itself, it starts before you hit the shutter and it ends after you print it (that bit, actuallly, remains to be done...maybe this evening).

Mine will be a peach schnapps please. I'm feeling like living dangerously. Whose round is it?

Morlar

elven wrote:

Warm...!?

The forecast is 13-18 so it could get sunny

bovril

Valentia wrote:

Warning to those who may have dozed off: TODAY IS NOT FRIDAY.

You all had me fooled anyway. I was planning my weekend already

thebaz

elven wrote:

Maybe that's why it should be a friday thread after all

Who's free tomorrow after work???

sometimes i wish i never quit drinking , but then i only took up photography after stopping , swapped one addiction for another ... at least photography doesn't damage my liver :mad:

magicbastarder

haven't had time to read the thread, but why would your job be done with slide film once you'd gotten the slide back? you can still scan.

magicbastarder

also, i think the comparison between photoshop and traditional post-processing is only useful up to a point.
you can do far more with photoshop than you can do in a darkroom; thus the argument that you can dodge and burn, and thus alter a photo in the darkroom, and equate that with some of the more exotic work in photoshop, is wrong-headed.

Calina

magicbastarder wrote:

also, i think the comparison between photoshop and traditional post-processing is only useful up to a point.
you can do far more with photoshop than you can do in a darkroom; thus the argument that you can dodge and burn, and thus alter a photo in the darkroom, and equate that with some of the more exotic work in photoshop, is wrong-headed.

surely that debate is not central to the discussion though...

magicbastarder

possibly not, i only had a chance to scan the first few posts.

Paulw

I guess you have to ask - where is the start of the process and where is the end?

Does the end mean just printing? What about framing? Background colour/texture behing the photo to be framed? Type of frame?

Or does it end with posting a photo online?

Yeah, of course you can do a hell of a lot more with a digital image and Photoshop over what you could do in a darkroom, but does that make it wrong? I certainly don't think so.

It's all part of the process, and part of the creativity of the photographer.

elven

Magic to answer your question about the scan thing, I saw it as a finished article as it was, not requiring any further processing such as negatives or raw files do. Yo're right, it could be scanned and manipulated further but I simply didn't have the facility for that at that point, so it's, well, beside the point

In general though that's simply something that I suggested to introduce my use of photoshop these days as being a creative endeavour, more so than I did when I used slide film. The real gist of the post was about feeling like I'm taking full part in the creation of the image, in a hands on, tactile kind of way, like taking the shot itself seems a bit too quick and almost an anticlimax, and photoshop seems a little clinical and distanced from the object you're creating. I suppose that's down to the tool, the PC, being something I use in non-art type situations every day...

magicbastarder

Calina wrote:

surely that debate is not central to the discussion though...

looking back on the thread, now that i have more time, i've just remembered that my post was a response to morlar and his comment re photo editing having moved on from the darkroom.

plus, i'd wholeheartedly disagree with him that the method is meaningless, that the end product is all that matters. the method is part of the end product.

Morlar

magicbastarder wrote:

plus, i'd wholeheartedly disagree with him that the method is meaningless, that the end product is all that matters. the method is part of the end product.

Well speaking for myself - when I am looking at a picture I dont care about the method used to create it (whether its a film or digital camera, darkroom processed & printed or done on a pc).

The same analogy goes for if I read a book - I dont care if it was written on a typewriter or a wordprocessor or on backs of envelopes. In that sense the method of how its produced is meaningless.

prox

Process is an inherent part of any finished work. The main issue is that a huge number of photographers now only ever prep their work for the screen. It's a very different medium to a physical print, and in many ways far more forgiving.

magicbastarder

Morlar wrote:

Well speaking for myself - when I am looking at a picture I dont care about the method used to create it (whether its a film or digital camera, darkroom processed & printed or done on a pc).

it's one thing not caring how the end product was produced, but how it was produced will have a big impact on how the end product turns out.

edit: re the writing analogy; i don't think that holds. writing on a computer vs. writing on a typewriter will not differ in what you write nearly as much as photoshop vs. chemicals.

Fajitas!

Here's one for you, coming off a debate that arises quiet often on FM forums...

Whose opinion matters most when you post up for C&C...other photographers, or the 'common people' looking at it?

While one may be striving to get a perfectly exposed image, technically correct etc, the 'common person' may see that as boring, whereas something with 'big white patches' can look great... So, whose opinion matters most?

prox

Your audience's, assuming you're practising photography as a performative act. It remains up to you to decide whether you want to reach the same people as John Hinde or Andreas Gursky.

leinsterman

Jaysus lads ... I can see none of you were busy at the office yesterday


Elven ... (and I have to be careful here, since I'm 100% sure it was not me who christened you macro girl in the first place ...:o) ... I don't see any problem with classifying people according to their style ... in fact it is a great compliment in my opinion ... I'd love for people to look at the images I produce and say ... that one is definitely on of his ... this is no different to what happens in other art forms, where there are many forms of classification used and styles described ... e.g. Impressionism, Cubism, Neo-impressionism, dadaism, pop art, pontillism, surrealism etc ...

With regard to the craft element ... the way I see it is producing images for consumption or otherwise (not everyone cares that the world adores or even hates their work ... some just do it for their own personal satisfaction) ... is a beginning to end process which is for me a struggle (if that is the right word) for a form of perfection, something that says "this is me" "this is my style" ... I truely believe that one day I will produce an image and say to myself ... "I'm there" ... the question is at what stage will I know this ... after I press the shutter button, when I open the RAW file, after I finish processing it, after I print it ... I can't really say ... what attracts me to taking photographs is a combination of factors such as -

It has a physical element ... in that you have to get off yer bum to stand a good chance of capturing a good image
It has a natural elelment ... in that you need to understand light and shade and indeed nature itself
It has a creative element ... in that you need to understand what works and what does not along evert step of the photographic process ... you need to see past the image to an end result
It has a craft element ... in that you need to understand the capabilities of all of the tools involved (camera, lenses, light meters, computer software, printers, web pages etc.)
It has a technology element ... in that the technology is continually evolving at a faster pace than before thanks to digital mostly ...
It has a learning element ... in that there is always something new to learn from the physical, the natural, creativity, craft, technology and learning itself ...

Like everything else in life ... photography is a journey ... the question is -Is it the act of travelling that matters or arriving at the destination or both ? ... and if it is both what matters more?

This is why I find it comical when analog photographers claim using computers is wrong ... it is not ... in fact if anythign is wrong it is sending a film to a lab for processing ... though for me it is not about right and wrong it is about choices ... one of which is - where do I step out of the process and let someone else get involved? ...


I'll finish by say this - As someone who started getting into photography through digital, and still almost exclusively uses digital ... it is ironic that perhaps the most special moment in phtography for me so far was the moment in the darkroom last September when I put a piece of paper into some chemicals and lo and behold ... an image was born ... right before my eyes!!!
Was this craft ?

Morlar

prox wrote:

The main issue is that a huge number of photographers now only ever prep their work for the screen.

That was not the main issue of the thread in fact hadnt been mentioned up to that point. Also it is possible to print digitally rather than from a negative which would still make it a 100% digital method over an analogue (negative/film) one. In any event the method still doesnt matter to me.

dalk

Morlar wrote:

prox wrote:

The main issue is that a huge number of photographers now only ever prep their work for the screen.

That was not the main issue of the thread in fact hadnt been mentioned up to that point. Also it is possible to print digitally rather than from a negative which would still make it a 100% digital method over an analogue (negative/film) one. In any event the method still doesnt matter to me.

I wonder though is this the crux of some of the points of the discussion. Elven feeling that a sculpture or painting being more real, more satisfying to create because you physically interact with it. A lot of peoples feeling that photoshop is "cheating" (because they think its the computer "creating it", not you). Leinstermans delight in his first wet chemical print (rather than say the equal amazement of watching an inkjet spitting picolitres of ink onto paper). Again its about the machine "creating it" rather than a person.

Which to a small extent i agree with. But the machines don't these things by themselves, they are just more evolved tools. And the history of photography is the evolution of more and more capable tools.

So a picture can now go from sensor to on-screen finished product (with full post processing in between) but never actually be something tangible/physical. Lose/Corrupt/Fail to Backup/Delete that sequence of binary digits and its like it never existed. Its spent its life as an expression of digital algorithms.

So for that reason i like to print my own pictures. Even if its just 10x15cm... at least it can gather dust someplace and age.

elven

dalk, you got it, bang on. I suppose it's just a case of coming to terms with those tools being more sophisticated and based on technology rather than crude, physical ones that you operate at a lower level. I think it also comes down to appreciating that a lot of the craft element can also be found in the seeing and capturing stages, if I stop and savour that a bit more.

Still fancy trying out alternative printing techiques, though, for a bit of fun

leinsterman

did someone mention after work debates over a drink ?

did we pick a pub and a time ?

Paulw and I are not far away from you elven ... so maybe somewhere like The Bleeding Horse ?

Morlar

My vote would go to the porterhouse - the more central the better.

elven

I'm on taxi duty tonight but I'd come along anyway.

Won't the porterhouse be stowed (that's scottish for 'particularly busy', if you're not familiar ) after work on a friday night? Anyone know anywhere handy that's going to give us a chance to get a table?

Morlar, the horse isn't actually far out of town at all... just down wexford street-ish...

leinsterman

elven wrote:

I'm on taxi duty tonight but I'd come along anyway.

Won't the porterhouse be stowed (that's scottish for 'particularly busy', if you're not familiar ) after work on a friday night? Anyone know anywhere handy that's going to give us a chance to get a table?

Morlar, the horse isn't actually far out of town at all... just down wexford street-ish...

I'm not drinking either .... so you'll have company ... we could meet around 5:30ish and if everyone is gone by 7.30 then fair enough ... that's what after work pints are about ...

If the Horse is too far ... how about we compromise for one of the pubs along Wexford St ... Ryan's for example ... plenty of parking nearby ... though at cost and meters involved ... so not totally ideal ...

Oh and Julie ... which darkroom you using for your Holga pics ? ... are you interested in sharing a day session at the Photo Gallery as a learning experience ... of course I'd need to complete the half shot roll of Neopan to do this so I'd need time ...

Paulw

leinsterman wrote:

Paulw and I are not far away from you elven ... so maybe somewhere like The Bleeding Horse ?

Unfortunately, today I am far away. Being sent out of the office to a customer site for the day. And this evening, I've visitors.

Mind you, this really would be a good discussion to have over a few pints sometime.

Morlar

Yep I know where the bleeding horse is - that'd be either 2 busses or a bus and a hike. I dont finish work till 6pm so wont get there dame st till about 7:15 (have to drop the car then wait for a bus) or so - add to that a 15 min walk from dame st to the bleeding horse and its sounding like hometime. I still say somewhere central would suit better than any pub on wexford street.

Morlar

Actually if the plan is starting at 5:30 and finishing at 7 I will give it a miss - no point dashing from work (saggart -ish) through rush hour into town only to head home again, plus wexford street is a 15 min walk through the rain by the looks of it. If it was more central and ending later I would head in - otherwise have fun !