They just don't get it, don't they?

[bjorke]

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.

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.

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)



PS: some of us like tofu. What's wrong with alternative packaging?

 

[JBrunner]

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.

I'm definitely not threatened by digital imaging and subsequent post graphic design. It's pretty hard to feel threatened by something I have a hard time taking seriously in the first place. I didn't always feel this way, it just sort of evolved as I realized many persons have little in the way of taste or sophistication. Fake food, fake wood, fake bricks, fake rock, fake metal, fake paintings, fake furniture, fake photographs. Nothing one can do about that. When I can't ignore or escape it, I do find the mind set mildly irritating, (phrases like "digital darkroom" to describe computer work stations, etc.) However, more power to this guy, and anybody else who does things they enjoy. Perhaps someday they may be inspired to try the real thing. They probably think working with 8x10 and printing in a dark room like I do, is mildly inane.

The interesting observation is that I doubt you would find me or any other photographer using traditional materials making a huge effort to imitate digital imagery. Sort of validates what I do, in a backhanded sort of way, and says a lot about the current state of the medium, in the way my baby brother used to try to imitate me, when we were kids.

 

[nicolai]

Just to be clear: I'm a computer programmer, too. Digital doesn't scare me, and I don't consider it cheating (I even shoot it sometimes). I'm not a purist. The only thing I care about is whether an artist is able to achieve the outcome they're after, and however they get there is their business.

I think digital filtering--at least as far as this is concerned--is at basically the same point as amplifier and speaker simulation is in audio (though perhaps a bit behind): it's sort of close, and is now good enough to be enjoyable in its own right, but it still isn't a convincing stand-in for what it aims to replicate. The example you posted falls into that category for me: it's cool on its own, but is simply not convincing to me either as a dag or a period lens.

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)

It has to mean something? To re-frame your question, what does sharpness mean? What can it be made to mean other than the same "crispness" platitudes? Resolution? Contrast? Tonal scale? Iris shape? DoF? Flare resistance? They're attributes that don't mean anything on their own; we assign meaning to them. Sharpness matters if the photographer wants to make a sharp picture. Warbliness matters if the photographer wants to make a warbly picture. That's it. Tools in a box.

 

[Lee J]

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.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Fake analogue pictures are as pointless as vegetarian sausages.

Make that as pointless as organic free-ranging vegetarian sausages.

 

[bjorke]

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.

For me, it was the "make your crappy image 'artistic' by layering it with content-free crap."

This is not unique to digital by any means. It see it at every camera club containing some guy with inane sunset shots made with an $8000 lens. (I would even go so far as to include 95% of all "real" Holga pix I' see on sites like pnet and flickr into the same category)

 

[JBrunner]

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.

It depends on how you look at it. On its own, as a medium, it isn't fake. OTOH if I took an image file and laid a watercolor filter on it, and said it was a watercolor, nobody would really take it seriously. Same thing here, but the subtext gets lost in the whole dead horse beating, where some persons can't make a distinction between content and process, and it comes from both directions. The two things are simply different mediums, with a common heritage. The fact that one seeks to imitate the other is very much like the era when photography as a whole attempted to imitate paintings. Nothing new here, except the sheer volume of drivel, marketing and otherwise, associated with the infant medium.

I will be happy for digital when it really matures as a medium, and stops hiding its process behind pretentious and affected terms like "giclee", "digital darkroom" and other silly things of that ilk, designed to give it a legitimacy that it should (and can) earn on its own merits.

 

[Removed Account]

You've got to love the absurdity of attaching a digital back which costs more than some brand-new cars to a $20 camera. It's like putting a Porsche engine and suspension on an original VW Bug. Oh, wait... somebody did that...

- Justin

Edit: Just noticed that's not the Holga with the Phase 1 back on it. Show's what I know... I'll see if I can find that again, just for the pure strangeness of it

 

[IloveTLRs]

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

 

[JBrunner]

At least there was some nudity in the gallery so it wasn't a wasted click

Complete with fake film edge.

 

[Eric Rose]

Holga PS Actions: the ad-

***Finally, we did it ! Fed up of getting small holganized pics ?
Holganizer.com is proud to announce the official release of the Holganizer Actions for Adobe Photoshop™ CS !

The pack is composed of eight (8) scripts that will make your pictures look like as if they were shot with a Holga.
Color, Cross-processing (Xpro), Black & white, and Sepia. Then you choose if you need lightleaks or not !
By the way, it's working with horizontal, vertical, and square images.

The price ? only 20$... the price of a real Holga. But after that, you won't need to process your film rolls...***

Gee no more film processing, I'm sold!! ha ha

 

[Eric Rose]

Complete with fake film edge.

Gee I must have missed them. I'm so sad.

 

[IloveTLRs]

Complete with fake film edge.

Yeah I saw. Completely retarded

Personally if I'm going to be playing with an emulator, it's going to be for Super Mario Brothers, not Holga effects :rolleyes:

 

[steve]

I don't understand all of the energy constantly expended on this website bashing digital work. The real problem with most digital work is that the people aren't using it to its fullest extent, and are merely trying to replicate photographic effects.

If you look at the complete digital process as a workflow that ends in a print - then you need to exploit what is available digitally for expressive intent - and not as a means to merely replicate the analog / wet darkroom. The digital process can be a completely new way of working, and can be used to make prints that cannot be made in any other way.

However, I've seen few people approach the process as an integrated print making workflow - as opposed to a substitute for wet darkroom techniques.

I own a Holga - the Holga effect doesn't really look like what comes out of a Holga. In fact, the person would have been better off using a Lens Baby instead of software manipulations.

But, the crux of the bisquit on the photo is really that it was not orginally conceived as being a Holga-type photo - but was manipulated into one after the fact. In my opinion, the photo would be an equal failure if it was done in a wet darkroom instead of a computer. Lack of vision on the photographer's part cannot be made up through technique - no matter what workflow you choose.

 

[JBrunner]

Steve, what you said, except-

I don't see it as bashing digital. I see it as bashing something truly stupid.

Clumsy aping.

I think if you are going to do something this stupid, you should be prepared for less couth persons, such as myself, to pour derision upon it.

Digital proponents are the ones who should be seriously embarrassed.

 

[semeuse]

Exactly...I have seen absolutely brilliant work by artists in all kinds of mediums: film, digital, watercolor, sculpture, etc. Why waste time trying to emulate something done better with another tool, be it a $20 camera, a block of marble, or a $700 computer program? Stop trying to make champagne from grape Nehi.

 

[steve]

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...

 

[JBrunner]

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...

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.

 

[Bob F.]

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.

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...

Ho hum, Bob.

 

[donbga]

Stop trying to make champagne from grape Nehi.

Have you ever tried drinking hooch made from grape Nehi? It ain't bad if you don't have anything else to drink!

 

[Steve Smith]

Received this link in my e-mail today:

Combine the 'Holgariser' software with this http://trc1.emv2.com/I?a=A9X7Cqu5m57m8QFBL6CttkrjNQ to make it more like the real thing!


Steve.

 

[Uhner]

Combine the 'Holgariser' software with this http://trc1.emv2.com/I?a=A9X7Cqu5m57m8QFBL6CttkrjNQ to make it more like the real thing!


Steve.

Now we’re talking. It’s been a long time waiting – but I think that I’m finally ready to make the great leap to digital imagery.

 

[Sean]

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 Ferrari

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I want to be sick!
Ive been talking to people recently as some galleries here are exhibiting "digital cyanotypes" and "Digital Sepia toned" prints im sorry but NO NO NO!!! they are simply tinted inkjets!!!!! why is this crap happening where did this apathy come into play??? and how did such mis entitlement occur??? I am going to start going into some of these galleries and asking the curators how does the computers produce these cyanotypes? and have stern words with them for allowing such mis information to be put onto digital crap.

 

[pauliej]

Does anyone know if this software offers LensBaby-type photo mods? Just wondering... I think the software name is Faux-to-shop. Enjoy

paulie