Inked finally arrived....

Bob Carnie · Jul 24, 2005

Hi Dave W
All I can say is that if I am to believe that the elements within*small people, objects* are done traditionally then this gentlemen is one of the finest photocomp practitioners I have ever seen. The larger elements *buildings over cities * are still excellent but in our repro department *70s-80s* there were lots of us able to do this type of comping.
What is curious to me is how now *2005* he is using very complicate proceedures for his work.* print-rubylith- soft edge mask-pos neg lith film-micro modifiying spread choke - major element reduction into existing masks* I could go on and on. This work is extremely time consuming, difficult, frustrating and if he is still doing it the old photocomp way with no photoshop for the more difficult closecuts my hat goes off to him.
By the way , I only looked at the elements of these photographs as this is a real interesting area of photography for me as I did this for years. I would like to see some of his prints in person. but the PS issues need to be answered before I would buy one.

Jon King · Jul 24, 2005

Another photomontage artist(s), completely analog/painting, by all descriptions I've read, is Robert ParkeHarrison. www.parkeharrison.com.

I knew of Jerry Uelsmann, but not Thomas Barbey - thanks Dave W. for the link!

Jeremy · Jul 24, 2005

jking said:
Robert ParkeHarrison. www.parkeharrison.com

Wow, some really fantastic stuff! Thanks for the link

david b · Jul 24, 2005

Robert Parke-Harrison is a husband wife team that creates sets and props and used bits and pieces from historic photographs. Their actual images are something like 40"x60". I've seem them in person and they are quite nice.

Bob Carnie · Jul 24, 2005

In Canada , 1980 it was illegal to photograph cigarette packages for commercial advertising purposes. To get around this rule we would start with a rolled piece of paper and start from there and by a complicated series of photo comp proceedures make a cigarette package * export A eh* and drop it into a casual image of people drinking, driving expensive cars, men riding horses you name it.
So any ways to make a long story short 10years after my graduation from Fanshawe College my 3rd year instructor brought a class full of students to the Lab I worked for. We had a 4ft x8ft photo mural of an cigarette ad on display and my instructor started to explain to his current crop of students how the photographer lit the scene bla bla bla. Unfortunately it was all an illusion created by a repro department starting with one rolled piece of paper.
If someone is still working this way to create imagery and it can fool the eye , I would give them credit , as it is very hard, did I say very hard to do well.

tim atherton · Jul 25, 2005

Dave Wooten said:
It is refreshing to see introduction of photographers whose work I am not familiar with.....I have always been a fan of Jerry Uelsmann but you gotta see this....

Check out www.thomasbarbey.com RB 67 and Canon AE-1 cameras

Ha - that stuff's hilarious - it looks like someone let Terry Gilliam loose in Photoshop while he was on magic mushrooms

Bet it sells well at Blake's Seven and Doctor Who conventions

DavidS · Jul 25, 2005

tim said:
Ha - that stuff's hilarious - it looks like someone let Terry Gilliam loose in Photoshop while he was on magic mushrooms

Bet it sells well at Blake's Seven and Doctor Who conventions

Actually, his photography sells well EVERYWHERE. Galleries, festivals, exhibitions...he even has a toy manufacturer making a deal for a jig-saw puzzle for his photography. He is very well-off because of his photography. And none of it is digital.

Dave Wooten · Jul 25, 2005

good observation!

KenM · Jul 25, 2005

I've only seen the 2nd issue, and I thought that for the most part, the images were relatively dark (with the exception of a few, such as those by Barbey - while not my taste in images, they were well printed). I'm not sure if the original images were dark, or if the printing in the magazine was flawed, but I thought the images were printed a bit heavy.

O\overall I would give the magazine a 7/10 for image quality. I did not read any of the articles, so I can't comment on that.

DavidS · Jul 26, 2005

KenM said:
I've only seen the 2nd issue, and I thought that for the most part, the images were relatively dark (with the exception of a few, such as those by Barbey - while not my taste in images, they were well printed). I'm not sure if the original images were dark, or if the printing in the magazine was flawed, but I thought the images were printed a bit heavy.

O\overall I would give the magazine a 7/10 for image quality. I did not read any of the articles, so I can't comment on that.

Actually, the printing in Inked Magazine is very much like the printing of B&W. Henry from B&W tells his printers that he wants the images dark. I would say that some of the images that turned out to be too dark were a bad choice to use in the magazine and that is only the fault of the publisher..

tim atherton · Jul 26, 2005

DavidS said:
Actually, his photography sells well EVERYWHERE. Galleries, festivals, exhibitions...he even has a toy manufacturer making a deal for a jig-saw puzzle for his photography. He is very well-off because of his photography. And none of it is digital.

Yeah - well - Anne Geddes is probably the most financially successful photographer in history -and she uses 4x5, but that doesn't mean it doesn' cause a gag reflex (there is a reason she teamed up with Celine Dion).

It also proves that Photoshop and digital doesn't have exclusive rights on making really bad motnages

tim a

tim atherton · Jul 26, 2005

DavidS said:
Actually, his photography sells well EVERYWHERE. Galleries, festivals, exhibitions...he even has a toy manufacturer making a deal for a jig-saw puzzle for his photography. He is very well-off because of his photography. And none of it is digital.

Yeah - well - Anne Geddes is probably the most financially successful photographer in history -and she uses 4x5, but that doesn't mean it doesn' cause a gag reflex (there is a reason she teamed up with Celine Dion).

It also proves that Photoshop and digital doesn't have exclusive rights on making really bad montages

tim a

djklmnop · Jul 27, 2005

I was at the bookstore today and flipped through the magazine. Why is Jeff Alu featured? His B&W are taken with an HP (correction, Kodak) digital P&S camera. Just curious.

Dead Link Removed

roteague · Jul 27, 2005

djklmnop said:
I was at the bookstore today and flipped through the magazine. Why is Jeff Alu featured? His B&W are taken with an HP digital P&S camera. Just curious.

Dead Link Removed

Just goes to prove, some people will buy anything regardless of how bad it is.

DavidS · Jul 27, 2005

roteague said:
Just goes to prove, some people will buy anything regardless of how bad it is.

You know, I recently spoke to another photographer when he received a copy of the magazine...and all he could say was how much he dis-liked Dennis Mecham's prints (among others).

Fast forward a couple of weeks later at Photo San Francisco, Dennis sells the most prints and his prints get the most looked at and enjoyed. This just proves to you how subjective art is. I mean, if someone can splatter paint on a canvas and sell it for a million at a gallery in Paris and be called a genius, then Jeff Alu's photoshopped images can certainly be called art. I don't know how many photographers here create their prints soley for their own enjoyment and others create it for the purpose of art (and out of those how many sell their own), but it's not an easy business to get involved with (as most of you will read in the 3rd issue in the interview with Tom Millea)...and if your photography is chosen, even by a local gallery, to be sold, that says something about you. Not only that, but Jeff's prints don't sell for a lot of money, which means the gallery won't be making a lot of money off of his prints unless they sell a lot of them. All in all, I think Jeff's got something going and deserves recognition for his accomplishments.

I also noticed a lot of galleries weren't hanging anything smaller than 16 x 20 prints. The larger the prints and the matting and framing, the more attention and sales the print/photographer received. Quite interesting.

c6h6o3 · Jul 28, 2005

DavidS said:
Actually, his photography sells well EVERYWHERE. Galleries, festivals, exhibitions...he even has a toy manufacturer making a deal for a jig-saw puzzle for his photography. He is very well-off because of his photography. And none of it is digital.

Much breathtaking photography goes unsold while pure junk sells like crazy. As H.L. Mencken put it: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

I believe that for most of the members of this forum, how successful a photographer is in the marketplace is the least relevant of evaluative criteria. It certainly is for me.

Jeremy · Jul 28, 2005

Saw 3 copies of the magazine at B&N yesterday here in Denton, TX, but all 3 copies were damaged so I did a quick glance through but decided to pass (why by a damaged magazine?). Did look pretty nice, though.

DavidS · Jul 28, 2005

Jeremy Moore said:
Saw 3 copies of the magazine at B&N yesterday here in Denton, TX, but all 3 copies were damaged so I did a quick glance through but decided to pass (why by a damaged magazine?). Did look pretty nice, though.

Damaged? How?

jjstafford · Jul 28, 2005

djklmnop said:
I was at the bookstore today and flipped through the magazine. Why is Jeff Alu featured? His B&W are taken with an HP (correction, Kodak) digital P&S camera. Just curious.

Dead Link Removed

Alu was probably featured because he has been promoting his work for years, and the work is simple and consistent: it has qualities (as it were) that critics appreciate for better or worse. I could go on, but some might think I'm fanning the fires.

Inked finally arrived....

Bob Carnie

Jon King

Jeremy

david b

Bob Carnie

tim atherton

DavidS

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

Dave Wooten

KenM

DavidS

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

tim atherton

tim atherton

djklmnop

roteague

DavidS

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

c6h6o3

Jeremy

DavidS

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

jjstafford

Inked finally arrived....

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

<div class="smallfont"><strong><em><font color="44

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency