Shooting the cast of Little Women on wet plate

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 13, 2020

https://petapixel.com/2020/02/12/be...-plate-portraits-of-the-cast-of-little-women/

foc · Feb 13, 2020

Thanks for posting, very enjoyable.

Photographic alchemy at its best.

Peter Schrager · Feb 13, 2020

lovely thanks!!

winger · Feb 13, 2020

Very cool!

foveon_m · Feb 14, 2020

what I don´t understand, what to do with mirrowed portraits?

Ray Morgenweck · Feb 14, 2020

....I don’t see a vertical silver bath. That accounts for the spots and streaks. 30 sec exposure is “faster”? Hmmmm. Could have been better with a proper north skylight and reflectors.

removedacct1 · Feb 14, 2020

While these are decent portraits, I think it’s a shame that he’s relying so heavily on “artifacts” to make the images: the plates are streaked with comets and littered with junk that indicate sloppy technique and a poorly maintained silver bath. I wish practitioners wouldn’t lean on dirty technique to make authentic tintypes - it’s as if they think people won’t accept them as genuine unless they’re covered in dirt and comets and veiling (all signs of poor technique). It gives the impression that it’s an inherently dirty, flawed process, which - if you actually make an effort - it is not. These portraits wouldn’t lose anything by making cleaner plates.
Some people make excellent use of artifacts and “loose” technique in crafting their photographs (Sally Mann uses technical flaws very well to ADD meaning to her work) but when making standard “period piece” portraits, this approach to technique results in compromised images, IMO.

dkonigs · Feb 14, 2020

paulbarden said:
While these are decent portraits, I think it’s a shame that he’s relying so heavily on “artifacts” to make the images: the plates are streaked with comets and littered with junk that indicate sloppy technique and a poorly maintained silver bath. I wish practitioners wouldn’t lean on dirty technique to make authentic tintypes - it’s as if they think people won’t accept them as genuine unless they’re covered in dirt and comets and veiling (all signs of poor technique). It gives the impression that it’s an inherently dirty, flawed process, which - if you actually make an effort - it is not. These portraits wouldn’t lose anything by making cleaner plates.
Some people make excellent use of artifacts and “loose” technique in crafting their photographs (Sally Mann uses technical flaws very well to ADD meaning to her work) but when making standard “period piece” portraits, this approach to technique results in compromised images, IMO.

This is something I've been wondering about a lot lately. Nearly every example of "modern person doing old tintypes for artistic effect" you see online is absolutely clobbered with defects. And I think its presented as though those defects were normal to the process, and add character to the image.

Meanwhile, I have a tintype portrait of my wife and I (before we were married) that was taken of us a few years ago at a Civil War reenactment festival. The photographer used the proper camera (wooden box with a brass lens that lacked an integrated shutter), had a little chemistry box/tent nearby, and did the final processing right in front of us. The picture is essentially perfect, and has none of those defects.

So I keep wondering... Is the process actually supposed to have those defects, or is it just people being sloppy and thinking they can get away with it because people expect it? Somehow, I'm starting to suspect the latter.

removedacct1 · Feb 14, 2020

dkonigs said:
So I keep wondering... Is the process actually supposed to have those defects, or is it just people being sloppy and thinking they can get away with it because people expect it? Somehow, I'm starting to suspect the latter.

I can absolutely guarantee you that people who make plates with heavy artifacts are doing so because they believe it “adds authenticity” to the plate, and/or because people expect it. These defects are fairly easy to avoid, so the only reason to see them is because the photographer is intentionally being sloppy, or they don’t have control over their materials.

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 14, 2020

As for the artifacts, I think it depends on the artist intention. If you want to see it from a technical stand point, it's sloppiness.

Would you accept a dropped lemon tart in a 3-Michellin star restaurant made by a highly trained chef?

For some artist, they're trying to find the perfect flaw.

removedacct1 · Feb 14, 2020

Mainecoonmaniac said:
As for the artifacts, I think it depends on the artist intention. If you want to see it from a technical stand point, it's sloppiness.

Would you accept a dropped lemon tart in a 3-Michellin star restaurant made by a highly trained chef?

For some artist, they're trying to find the perfect flaw.

Its more than simply "artifacts = intent" VS "technical errors = sloppiness". I see a lot of this and it appears to me that it is frequently done (the artifacts thing) because the photographer thinks that its not authentic ENOUGH if it doesn't have a sh*tload of marks on the plate. If as a photographer you are that concerned with how your work is perceived, then perhaps it would be a good idea to re-evaluate your goals and sense of purpose as a wet plate practitioner. Leaving a lot of marks on your plate makes it look like an affectation, not an intentional artistic decision.

"The perfect flaw" is only perfect if it transcends affectation. Just my take on it, of course.

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 14, 2020

paulbarden said:
Leaving a lot of marks on your plate makes it look like an affectation, not an intentional artistic decision.

"The perfect flaw" is only perfect if it transcends affectation. Just my take on it, of course.

It could be. I remember those fake Polaroid type 55 edges in Photoshop. Here's another take, The photographer could just be a hired gun and the set designer or director wanted it the dirty look. Since the work is not in a gallery, we just don't know. Also, there's no standard for for WPC photography. I love the work of Sally Mann and she doesn't have many artifacts in her work.

removedacct1 · Feb 14, 2020

Mainecoonmaniac said:
It could be. I remember those fake Polaroid type 55 edges in Photoshop. Here's another take, The photographer could just be a hired gun and the set designer or director wanted it the dirty look. Since the work is not in a gallery, we just don't know. Also, there's no standard for for WPC photography. I love the work of Sally Mann and she doesn't have many artifacts in her work.

I'm not suggesting that an art director didn't have a say in the matter. Perhaps decisions were made that were not entirely the photographers. I'm only remarking on the fact that dirty plates are all too often the result of poor aesthetic choices or some awkward notion that the plates have to be littered with artifacts in order to appear "genuine".

Shooting the cast of Little Women on wet plate

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency