Trickery and fake

Ian Grant · Aug 3, 2012

This - [h=2]Olympic Athletes Photographed Using a Field Camera and 100-Year-Old Lens[/h] has to be some of the worst photography I've seen, totally fake and inaccurate.

The lens is way over 100 yeras old and images have deliberately faked artefacts to make them look old it's an insult to those using film.

Ian

BrianShaw · Aug 3, 2012

That's embarassing. He obviously spends too much time chatting on internet forums and not enough time using Petzvals or any other kind of older gear.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 3, 2012

Typical gimmickry. "I'm using a big camera and an old lens. Didn't that old gear suck? Aren't I great for using it"?

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 3, 2012

I don't think it's necessarily fakery going on. The photographer didn't dress them up in period costumes. I think many people are hungering for something more organic and real than slick digital images. For me it's like somebody wanting to eat a real home made pie made from scratch after eating factory made pies for a long time. Wouldn't you agree? I hope this will start people wanting to shoot analog again.

Ian Grant · Aug 3, 2012

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I don't think it's necessarily fakery going on. The photographer didn't dress them up in period costumes. I think many people are hungering for something more organic and real than slick digital images. For me it's like somebody wanting to eat a real home made pie made from scratch after eating factory made pies for a long time. Wouldn't you agree? I hope this will start people wanting to shoot analog again.

It's the [rocessing artefacts that are fake and deliberate, not the images and the use of older lenses.

Ian

cliveh · Aug 3, 2012

I don't understand his point and how can you compare colour to black & white?

railwayman3 · Aug 3, 2012

cliveh said:
I don't understand his point and how can you compare colour to black & white?

Agreed, not sure what the guy was trying to prove. The quality of good photos from 100+ years ago was amazing, and even 100-year-old movie footage is still fine if properly restored and seen as it was originally rather then n-th generation copies.
Would be more interesting to see genuine and good period photos of athletes taken at the time.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 3, 2012

Ian , do you watch BBC , there is snog avoid or marry program , they collect from the streets fake girls - most horrible human beings I have ever seen - and transform them to Grace Kelly. In two sides , they are fake. It might not new to you that someone want to earn money and doing every move to success or impress.

Brian C. Miller · Aug 3, 2012

The "processing artifacts" are because he used paper negatives, and he just did it for grins and giggles. I thought that it was a rather nice set of portraits, much nicer than the modern stuff I've seen.

btaylor · Aug 3, 2012

Yes! I was mystified as well when I saw the insert in the LA Times with some of his photographs. I am frequently amazed at the high quality of photography and cinematography a hundred years ago (both technical and aesthetic) when I see restored or undamaged work the way it looked when it was current. I just wish they had been more honest about the fact that the messy artifacts were an aesthetic choice, not simply the result of using 100 year old equipment.

railwayman3 said:
Agreed, not sure what the guy was trying to prove. The quality of good photos from 100+ years ago was amazing, and even 100-year-old movie footage is still fine if properly restored and seen as it was originally rather then n-th generation copies.

cliveh · Aug 3, 2012

Perhaps he should show some images by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe and then try and emulate them with digital cameras.

SkipA · Aug 3, 2012

As was previously mentioned, he used paper, not film.

Each black-and-white portrait was exposed onto black-and-white photographic paper, processed in a darkroom and scanned into a computer.

I liked them.

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 3, 2012

I like them too. I think those fake Photoshop filters that make digital images look analog shows that imitating sincerest form flattery

You don't see analog photographers putting filters in front of their cameras to fake pixels

Bill Burk · Aug 3, 2012

Makes me glad that 30mm Petzvals are not common...

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 3, 2012

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I like them too. I think those fake Photoshop filters that make digital images look analog shows that imitating sincerest form flattery

You don't see analog photographers putting filters in front of their cameras to fake pixels

That's a really, really good point...

Ken

Ian Grant · Aug 3, 2012

Ken Nadvornick said:
That's a really, really good point...

Ken

It's not flattery when the technique deliberately maks the images look far worse than they would be if genuine !!!!!

Ian

artonpaper · Aug 3, 2012

However they were done, they're terrible in my not so humble opinion.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 3, 2012

Ian Grant said:
It's not flattery when the technique deliberately maks the images look far worse than they would be if genuine !!!!!

Ian

Not the flattery part. The converse logic part. Not needing to try to look like the other technology in the other direction.

Lots of rebate plug-ins, grain plug-ins, and faded-colors-to-look-like-1950 plug-ins for digital images. But not too many camera or enlarger filters to add that pixellated look to film photographs.

Wonder why that is??

Besides, failed attempts at flattery are still flattery, aren't they? It's just the implementation that sucked. Intentional or otherwise.

Ken

lxdude · Aug 3, 2012

I find them annoying. They're affected. They don't look like old pictures, so what's the point? The contrast is way funky, and the artifacts just make them look messy. Just perusing some of the old shots available on Shorpy shows what could be achieved long ago.

If these had been taken a hundred years ago, hell 150 years ago, the guy would have been advised to find another line of work.

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 3, 2012

I think analog imaging to older folks like me, will part of our vernacular. These effects might bring us back to a more genuine and simpler time when you really can believe a photo. It's not just fake photo effects like grain and streaks. It's also with video and audio too. They have scratched film effects for video, pop and clicks for people that record digital music. That's my take on it.

Bill Burk · Aug 3, 2012

I don't understand the hostility. I think this was a good idea. I think the pictures have charm.

A young photographer shoots paper negatives to achieve a look... Seems real to me.

The artifacts from splashing developer and mottled processing appear real. The rebates appear real.

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 3, 2012

As photographers, we should be looking to produce the perfect flaw. Especially in a digital age!

ColdEye · Aug 3, 2012

lxdude said:
.. The contrast is way funky, and the artifacts just make them look messy.

The contrast is "funky" because they are paper negatives. Plus he might be bad at processing, I know I was when I tried LF.

Michael W · Aug 3, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I don't understand the hostility. I think this was a good idea. I think the pictures have charm.

A young photographer shoots paper negatives to achieve a look... Seems real to me.

The artifacts from splashing developer and mottled processing appear real. The rebates appear real.

I like them. They have the ortho look of paper negs, and I think the posing is better on those ones than the digital shots.

Colin Corneau · Aug 3, 2012

Interestingly, a USA Today shooter did this schtick almost a decade ago, for the Athens Olympics.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1284

And I seem to recall someone Frankensteining an old tiny Petzval lens onto a Canon 5D DSLR, but I won't go into that here....

Trickery and fake

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency