F#@%ing Fakes

[Jim Fitzgerald]

See this Jim...

Edit: Don't miss the article in the bottom...

Thanks for the info and the link Loris. I thought carbon was time consuming!!

Jim

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is a 3-color carbon printing process. Yellow-, Magenta-, and Cyan-colored tissues are printed in registration, one after another. It's a marvelously beautiful process.

On another point: I hope no one posting on this thread still thinks digital can't be beautiful or at least a legitimate photographic expression.

About 3-color carbon. I have seen prints done with that technique, and they can indeed be stunning!

About inkjet: I have had a period of about a year now where I was without a darkroom. I have it back, but it will take some time to get back into the swing of things. In the meantime I've been scanning my b&w negatives and printing some of it on an Epson inkjet. The prints are really very nice, and in some aspects rival my silver gelatin prints. A man I respect to bits, Keith Taylor, has done platinum and gravures for some time, and tri-color gum, in addition to being a true master silver printer. Last year I saw some color inkjets he had done, and yes, they were completely gorgeous as expected. The difference? The fact that somebody like Keith made inkjets somehow added validity to them among traditional printers, I felt. The quality of the output is all about a critical eye, and knowing what you're doing, in my opinion. The tools are just tools.

About honesty and misrepresentation: I too line up in the 'disgusted' line. It does no favors to photography, for sure. I certainly don't want to be associated with anybody misrepresenting their work, even if it's as vague as by trade.

 

[Adam Podstawczyński]

Ha ha, "interacting with the model, with the final image being nothing more than a side effect." I wonder what that means.

Well, it means VARIOUS interactions. For some (and I'm doing my best to make it "for me"), the process of _making_ a picture still before releasing the shutter is the most important part. And, in case of portraiture, it involves interacting with the model. What interaction that is, well that depends...! On many things.

 

[JBrunner]

There have been some buffoons calling their inkjet prints "carbon" ( i guess some inks are high in carbon content?)in an effort to avoid calling them "Inkjets". I ask why they are so ashamed of what they do? That seems to be the issue. Call it an Inkjet and set about making the best. Next I hear... ooooooi need to be sure people know these aren';t inkjets like out of an office printer, ioooo Well so what? I can give my son of 8 oils or watercolors and I don't see artists across the country mislabeling their work because they are worried that my sons work will be confused with theirs. That some lack the photographic prowess to know there already is a carbon process, and the pride in their own work to actually identify their process in an understandable way makes everything else about their efforts suspect, because if they don't take their own work seriously, if they have no respect themselves for it, why should anyone else take it seriously?

As I have opined before, the biggest disservice to photography has nothing to do with how photographs get made, or how an individual considers a method. The biggest strike is the lack of, or flat out misrepresentation of provenance. Photography will continue as an immature and regressive art form so long as photographers refuse to provenance their work correctly. After struggling into the light over the turn of the century amid much skepticism and naysaying, photography managed to take a place. The last 15 years have been a slide backwards, if for no other reason than the rush and goal to sell and homogenize all techniques under a single heading "photography" instead of the rightful provenance of an individual piece of work. Tools may not matter, but materials do insomuch as they identify the work beyond a brush or a camera. No one quibbles when an oil or watercolor is identified as such, and because it is not a big deal the painting is revered or reviled as what it is. To those that refuse to provenance their photography or clown provenance it because "it doesn't matter", well, if it doesn't matter, why all the BS about what it is? Answer: Nobody is more concerned about what it is than the clown ignoring his own methods, and they are liars, thieves, pimps and dogs, or the pinnacle of ignorance, and are the gravest enemy of the art and craft of photography and the serious photographer good and bad.

 

[Ian Grant]

Going back to the OP's post, what's more distasteful is that after excellent articles on alternative processes the magazine (if it's the one I subscribe to) then has an article on how to do the same with digital.

The alternative process articles are often by APUG members like David Chow BTW

Ian

 

[sly]

It's the misrepresentation, and the shoddiness of much fake-alt prints I object to. I have no problem appreciating excellent photography, whatever the medium. Digital is not my personal medium of choice. I'd rather spend time on my feet, in the dark, inhaling fix fumes, than sitting for hours in front of the computer. All power to the folks who've mastered digital, and make stunning inkjet prints.

 

[Sjixxxy]

The think that gave her away was not only the identical frame edges, but also that not all the images were 4x5" or even the same aspect ratio.

I like when I see a series and by sheer chance, all the keepers where frame number 16. Even more impressive when it was shot on Tri-x, yet is a full color image.

 

[jsouther]

If this upsets you, wait until you see "content aware" in CS5.
juan

OMG yes. Don't forget "puppet warp". I have to laugh now or I will cry.

 

[codester]

For those of us who honour the craft of photography we have nothing to worry about. On the many forums across the internet, I run into more and more people completely ignorant of what photography is or the skills and talent required to produce outstanding images. And it is all about producing outstanding images. I would say that 99 per cent of the images I see on the internet are complete garbage. Digital photography has made everyone think that an image that is in sharp focus and exposed properly is an award-winning image. This includes many of the "pros" I see out there. I just laugh at these fools. We live in a world where the tools and the process are more important than the outcome. Hell, we teach it in our schools. I've learned to ignore it all. I live with the satisfaction of knowing I can out shoot almost anyone I come across because I have the skills, the talent and knowledge which comes from hard work, dedication and passion for photography.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Going back to the OP's post, what's more distasteful is that after excellent articles on alternative processes the magazine (if it's the one I subscribe to) then has an article on how to do the same with digital.
Ian

It is the one you subscribe to, and that last issue was the reason why, after many years I've stopped subscribing to it. Instead I've taken out subscriptions to "Silvershotz" and "Lenswork" magazines.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

For those of us who honour the craft of photography we have nothing to worry about. On the many forums across the internet, I run into more and more people completely ignorant of what photography is or the skills and talent required to produce outstanding images. And it is all about producing outstanding images. I would say that 99 per cent of the images I see on the internet are complete garbage. Digital photography has made everyone think that an image that is in sharp focus and exposed properly is an award-winning image. This includes many of the "pros" I see out there. I just laugh at these fools. We live in a world where the tools and the process are more important than the outcome. Hell, we teach it in our schools. I've learned to ignore it all. I live with the satisfaction of knowing I can out shoot almost anyone I come across because I have the skills, the talent and knowledge which comes from hard work, dedication and passion for photography.

Long before the invention of the digital camera or the inkjet printer, there were photographers whose work sucked. Digital didn't change that a bit. Its just another medium to choose from and another set of tools. I don't get the nasty hatred toward that one set of tools and mediums when there are so many others that are perfectly fine. I've said it before and will say it again: If you're work is good, it'll be good no matter if you printed it on silver-gelatin paper, cyanotype, platinum, or inkjet. If your work sucks, it'll suck no matter which you choose. You choose a printing type based on what you want the photo to look like. One is not better or worse or more or less valid than the other. They're just tools you choose from, they're not expressions of value.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've said it before and will say it again: If you're work is good, it'll be good no matter if you printed it on silver-gelatin paper, cyanotype, platinum, or inkjet.

But silver-gelatin paper, cyanotype, platinum and carbon look better and feel better than stink-jet.

 

[MaximusM3]

I forget what it's called, but the photoshop plugin that "emulates" different black and white film grains is the one that burns me up. It's amazing to me that someone would pay money for this. It's also amazing to me that people pay $20-$100+ for rice cookers, because the idea of dumping rice into hot water is too much for them to grasp. Photoshop has become the new rice cooker.

Hey, my mother used a rice cooker. She didn't have time to sit in front of a stove with three crazy brats running around.

 

[MaximusM3]

It's not going away. I think the best we can do is continue to work on our art work, walk respectfully among our digital peers, and hope for some respect in return.

Personally I don't really care how anybody gets to their end results. A good picture is a good picture regardless of how it was printed.
And a good cup of coffee is a good cup of coffee no matter how the coffee was ground.

- Thomas

Amen, Thomas.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rice cookers produce cooked rice in a way that just boiling will not do. You need a better analogy, but the though is correct.

 

[removed account4]

Nice thread !!

I've got some fake ambrotypes here:
http://193.166.40.90/?p=1490

- Jalo

totally cool stuff you are doing jalo !

thanks for your faux ambro link

john

 

[nick mulder]

Rice cookers produce cooked rice in a way that just boiling will not do.

Boiling and straining ? ... if so, I totally agree.

I remember seeing for the first time a friends parents cooking rice that way, then eating it and clicking -> 'ahhh, so that's why dad does it the way he does!'

Would have been about 8 or so

His method involves duvets

 

[Ian Grant]

It is the one you subscribe to, and that last issue was the reason why, after many years I've stopped subscribing to it. Instead I've taken out subscriptions to "Silvershotz" and "Lenswork" magazines.

I've not seen an issue since May so I can't comment on that yet

But it's been on my mind to stop subscribing for the past 18 months.

Ian

 

[AgentX]

But silver-gelatin paper, cyanotype, platinum and carbon look better and feel better than stink-jet.

No, they don't.

They're different. Many inkjets are crappy, just like many analog prints.

But quality can be there with anything. Saw some brilliant Iris prints about 10 years ago on, I think, hot-press watercolor paper, that looked nicer than any gravure I've ever seen.

Nick Brandt's inkjet prints certainly aren't lacking.

PS I use a rice cooker, too, when I can.

 

[michaelbsc]

The rice cooker is like a 1 hour photo print processor. It mechanizes what is a very highly predictable and mundane process to free up labor. In the same way you don't get delicately nuanced dodging from a 1 hour photo, you don't get delicately flavored saffron rice from a rice cooker. That isn't "bad" on it's surface. It's just not individualized.

 

[MaximusM3]

Guys, don't have a darkroom back yet and have been printing with the latest Piezography K7 Matte and Selenium Gloss inks...I'm a VERY picky and perfectionist guy and you know what? They do look great and people buy them. No, they are not wet prints, (no worse, just different) but it certainly does not mean they are crap. They are what they are and certainly a viable option for those who don't have a darkroom for space, financial reasons, time, etc. I'm certainly not going to abandon photography and call myself a hack because I can't get into a darkroom at the moment.

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Why doesn't an artist be honest about his/her work. Call it what it is and if it is quality work who cares how you get there!! If it's good it's good! But let's be honest about what process it is. What is so hard about that???

Jim

 

[AgentX]

Yep, misrepresentation is fraud. But putting faux brush strokes on a digital print isn't misrepresentation in and of itself.

 

[MaximusM3]

Why doesn't an artist be honest about his/her work. Call it what it is and if it is quality work who cares how you get there!! If it's good it's good! But let's be honest about what process it is. What is so hard about that???

Jim

I am not aware of any serious artist selling an inkjet print as a "traditional darkroom print". I could be wrong but I don't think one would be silly enough to misrepresent and, frankly, I don't see the need. Like you've said, if it's good, it's good and it should end there.

 

[donbga]

There have been some buffoons calling their inkjet prints "carbon"

Just thought I would mention one of those buffoons is a very well know carbon printer.

The biggest strike is the lack of, or flat out misrepresentation of provenance. Photography will continue as an immature and regressive art form so long as photographers refuse to provenance their work correctly.

After struggling into the light over the turn of the century amid much skepticism and naysaying, photography managed to take a place. The last 15 years have been a slide backwards, if for no other reason than the rush and goal to sell and homogenize all techniques under a single heading "photography" instead of the rightful provenance of an individual piece of work. Tools may not matter, but materials do insomuch as they identify the work beyond a brush or a camera. No one quibbles when an oil or watercolor is identified as such, and because it is not a big deal the painting is revered or reviled as what it is. To those that refuse to provenance their photography or clown provenance it because "it doesn't matter", well, if it doesn't matter, why all the BS about what it is?

Could you explain what you mean by provenance? Provenance is typically defined as the history of ownership of an object or original location of an object, the object being a piece of art or photograph.