In fact I created software with exactly the described mannerisms, to be executed in real-time for video games, and presented it at GDC over two years ago.I have yet to see a digital process that can replicate the look of a Diana's warbly focus, what happens when the picture starts to fall apart at the edges of the image circle, or the look of slight defocus through these lenses.
Or an hour and a half in the darkroom.
Look, we all feel threatened by digital photography because frankly we're afraid we'll see more films and chemicals disappear as a consequence of it. This doesn't invalidate it as a medium.
The more important question -- why are those mannerisms important? What do they MEAN, what can they be made to mean other than the same "dreamy mood" platitudes? (the absence of answers points me back to Rexroth and her work in the mid-'70's)
Make that as pointless as organic free-ranging vegetarian sausages.Fake analogue pictures are as pointless as vegetarian sausages.
For me, it was the "make your crappy image 'artistic' by layering it with content-free crap."What bothers me most about the article the OP linked to is the whole concept of making an image look like s**t, not the fact that it is done using digital techniques.
How is digital photography any less real than analog photography? The whole concept of "fake photography" is a pleonasm. Any photograph, be it digital or not, is a representation of a reality, ergo fake. I'm not sticking up for either here, I'm just trying to make a point.
What bothers me most about the article the OP linked to is the whole concept of making an image look like s**t, not the fact that it is done using digital techniques.
Well if the original link wasn't enough, I bring you the Holganizer: http://www.holganizer.net/
At least there was some nudity in the gallery so it wasn't a wasted click
Complete with fake film edge.
Complete with fake film edge.
Fine - what's the point of wasting so much energy bashing something "truly stupid"? I don't get it. It serves no purpose - other than as an attempt at validition of your point-of-view. If you're that insecure about your working methods, no amount of self validation through ridicule of another working method can really help - can it?
One could also bash people who produce analog work that is merely replication of what's already been photographed 1,000 times before - with no new vision, personal interpretation, or vision. There is no point in that work either - yet, lots of it, apparently, gets done...
You really should not bash people who are bashing people for bashing people who... no wait, hang on, I've lost track now... Drat... I know there was a point in there somewhere...Fine- whats the point of wasting so much energy bashing somebody bashing something "truly stupid"?
I don't get it. It serves no purpose - other than as an attempt at validition of your point-of-view. If you're that insecure about your working methods, ... and so on.
Irony. Gotta love it.
Stop trying to make champagne from grape Nehi.
Combine the 'Holgariser' software with this http://trc1.emv2.com/I?a=A9X7Cqu5m57m8QFBL6CttkrjNQ to make it more like the real thing!
Steve.
The results on their demo page were quite lacking. I didn't see much resemblance to various films anymore that this is a FerrariCombine the 'Holgariser' software with this http://trc1.emv2.com/I?a=A9X7Cqu5m57m8QFBL6CttkrjNQ to make it more like the real thing!
Steve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?