Trickery and fake

[Bill Burk]

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.

Yes, any excuse to shoot 4x5 is fine by me!

I think maybe the hostility was a knee jerk reaction when at first glance it looked like it was a trick.

Then closer examination shows they are genuine and that's all right.

 

[John Austin]

We wasting too many brian cells discussing this turd - So, back to our own pursuit of what is good about silver jelly

 

[tkamiya]

I'm not a LF kind of guy but for example, the second image with a bike... The dreamy fuzzy effect is all on the background but stops abruptly just for the athletes face and the shirt. "USA" is perfectly clear with no distortion. What the heck...?

 

[blansky]

I think they're interesting and fun. Naturally black and white vs color gives the images an added interest.

BUT if you printed the digital in black and white and controlling depth of field and other aspects you'd have more interesting pictures as well.

I don't know why we're over thinking this.

Just enjoy it.

By the way, check out Mark Tucker's work for a great working photographers work.

 

[cowanw]

I'm not a LF kind of guy but for example, the second image with a bike... The dreamy fuzzy effect is all on the background but stops abruptly just for the athletes face and the shirt. "USA" is perfectly clear with no distortion. What the heck...?

That's the way petzval's look when used for negative sizes too large for their original purpose.

 

[Colin Corneau]

This guy's forgotten more than I'll ever know:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/an-olympic-photographers-endurance/

 

[removed account4]

he's just having fun ..

 

[brucemuir]

This guy's forgotten more than I'll ever know:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/an-olympic-photographers-endurance/

No fair Colin, that link goes to D Burnett.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That's the way petzval's look when used for negative sizes too large for their original purpose.

Yes, thank you. He's not even using the equipment as it was intended. What a simple tool.

 

[eddie]

I think it's great when a major US newspaper does a story on analog photography.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think it's great when a major US newspaper does a story on analog photography.

There is that, as a positive. I just wish the photography wasn't a complete misrepresentation of what analog photography is.

 

[eddie]

I just wish the photography wasn't a complete misrepresentation of what analog photography is.

Analog photography is many things... As this was truly analog, I don't consider it a misrepresentation.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Analog photography is many things... As this was truly analog, I don't consider it a misrepresentation.

He was using the lens on a larger negative than it was intended for, and his processing was sloppy. That misrepresents analog photography pretty thoroughly.

 

[BrianShaw]

he's just having fun ..

I'm all for having fun. I just don't like the results.

 

[Steve Smith]

An interesting interview with David Burnett:

[video=vimeo;13036394]http://vimeo.com/13036394[/video]



Steve.

 

[CGW]

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

Think you need to work on a higher "outrage" threshold, surely.

 

[ic-racer]

the photos show an interesting contrast between “old” and “new”.

Yes, an outdated 1990s color fill-flash style compared to the newest retro swirly-lens craze.

 

[ME Super]

It's art, pure and simple. Art doesn't have to reflect reality accurately. The photographer was going for an old photo look. My first thought was that he was using some orthochromatic film, until I saw he was using paper, which explains a lot of the look as most B&W paper is not red-sensitive. I think he could've done better without some of the blotchiness, especially of the last image, but if he got the look he was going for, good for him.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, an outdated 1990s color fill-flash style compared to the newest retro swirly-lens craze.

That "retro-swirly-lens-craze" is one that makes me want to vomit on every photographer who uses it.

 

[batwister]

So long as publications keep mentioning analog photography as something worthwhile - and I think that's the emphasis of this article - it's all good.

 

[lxdude]

He was using the lens on a larger negative than it was intended for, and his processing was sloppy. That misrepresents analog photography pretty thoroughly.

That's really it for me. The sloppy processing, deliberate or not, makes for distracting streaks and blotches. Old photos look so much better, and most modern paper negatives also do.

While attention given to analog is a good thing, and the idea of it being cool is a good thing, showing it just as some quaint lo-fi way of rendering doesn't really serve it all that well.

 

[hoffy]

Oh My F'ing Gawd - The LF Analogue snobs are out in force today. Do you guys do judging at camera clubs, because it surely sounds like the "doesn't fit what should be done, so its bad" mold that you see in these amateur clubs......

The pictures are what they are. The photographer probably had exactly what you see in mind when he went out to do the shoot. He applied some different techniques to get what he wanted and he is probably very happy with them. Sure, they might not be everyones cup of tea, but he got people talking about large format analogue photography didn't he.

Me personally? These photos show character - they are different (& dare I say, a damn sight more interesting then those shocking official photos that were published a few months ago).

Worry less, shoot more...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I agree! The cat is shooting analog.

 

[lxdude]

Speaking for myself, I just don't think they're all that great. I intensely don't like the blotches, streaks, etc. I think they add nothing to the images, but distract considerably.

Snobbery, no. I just don't care for them, for reasons I've already stated.

 

[lxdude]

I agree! The cat is shooting analog.

Your Maine Coon? All right!

All mine ever shot was hairballs.