Trickery and fake

[Poisson Du Jour]

The athletes look better in colour.
I do not know a great deal about these early lenses but I have known some references to them as being astigmoid. How is it that a Petzval can be so razor sharp in dead centre and myopically trashed right behind the centre, such as the swirls. The guy with the bmx bike is a case in point. That's a very curious effect. Astigmatism is rampant yet the central subject is curiously razor sharp. I'm wondering if there is a hybrid element to the job. I wonder if we'll ever see the original paper negs?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Looks like the developer may have been applied with a sponge to get those kinds of artifacts. Since paper negs can be developed under saflight, it seems like this is the look he wanted from the beginning.

Petzvals have lots of field curvature, which is why they can be so sharp in the center and not at the corners, paticularly wide open and if the lens is too short to cover the format adequately.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

And the artful swirls...? How are they explained?

 

[Herzeleid]

I am confused by the papers color sensitivity. Reds are ok, cyans and blues goes to white and pale gray. It is possible panchromatic paper was used, then why paler blues. If filter was used then why reds are not darker. If it was yellow filter to lower paper contrast I would expect to see the effect on the archers photo.
I do not feel they are simply analog process.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

And the artful swirls...? How are they explained?

Jim Galli did a series of posts, or maybe it was a page on his website, on the swirly Petzval effect. It seems to depend on having a lens that can do it and elements outside the DOF zone that can create that effect, like spots of light filtered through leaves.

In the photo of the guy with the stunt bike, I think the background feels like its swirling in part because of how it fits in the overall composition and because it is part of the out-of-focus area (i.e., the edges are swirling, and the texture in the corners is continuous with the background in the center, so it feels like the whole out-of-focus area is swirling). Also, it seems that the distant background, deeper into the OOF zone, swirls more than the near background toward the center of the image.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's Jim Galli's blog post on the swirl effect--

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/Swirlies.html

 

[removed account4]

I am confused by the papers color sensitivity. Reds are ok, cyans and blues goes to white and pale gray. It is possible panchromatic paper was used, then why paler blues. If filter was used then why reds are not darker. If it was yellow filter to lower paper contrast I would expect to see the effect on the archers photo.
I do not feel they are simply analog process.

hi

i shoot tons of paper negatives and i can guess why the coloration is the way it is. ...
my guess is he just scanned his paper negative in color and desaturated his image.
its not really as manipulated as one might think.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I am confused by the papers color sensitivity. Reds are ok, cyans and blues goes to white and pale gray. It is possible panchromatic paper was used, then why paler blues. If filter was used then why reds are not darker. If it was yellow filter to lower paper contrast I would expect to see the effect on the archers photo.
I do not feel they are simply analog process.

(head-banging icon goes here)
Paper is not sensitive to red light. That is why the reds turn black. This is why darkroom safelights are red for black and white paper.
Paper is sensitive to blue light. That is why the blues turn white.
Paper is sensitive to green light. If the vegitation was the proper shade of green, you would see it as white in the photographs.
This is why the Ilford Multigrade 500 head has seperate green and blue light in it for contrast control.

(RANT ON)
For a forum that is all about chemical photography, I am really shocked how little some of the members have researched this field. Honestly, guys, come on now! There is a thread in the darkroom section all about makeshift darkrooms. Set one up, and have some fun! Seriously!

As for lenses, take a peek out and away from your box cameras with proprietary lenses, and have a look at the big wide world of large format, where anything that can go on the front can be put on the front! David has posted some good links. What Jay L. Clendenin did was pure chemical photography, through and through. He did it in his bathroom sink, in fact. There was no digital manipulation, aside from probably clicking "auto contrast" during scanning.

There is more to life and photography than clicking through a roll and having Walmart or Riteaid or wherever develop it for you, and then posting some snaps! You can even do paper negatives in a 35mm camera! Just cut the paper the right size, stick it in the camera, and close the back. Go and expose one frame at ISO 3 or so, and see what comes out. No problem! You'll have some fun with it!

There is a big, wide, crazy world of photography out there. Go forth and have some fun!

 

[Brian C. Miller]

And the artful swirls...? How are they explained?

Petzval field curvature and other distortion, such as coma. There's a current Sony lens that does the same thing at f/2, but not as radical. When the lenses were made, that wasn't regarded as a feature, but as a flaw. The lenses were used at a small fraction of the illuminated area. The Rodenstock Imagon also does it, just use a "short" lens on a larger format.

Look at Jim Galli's site for many more examples of lenses being used far, far outside their design parameters. It's an effect you either love or hate, no in-betweens for it.

 

[Herzeleid]

(head-banging icon goes here)
Paper is not sensitive to red light. That is why the reds turn black. This is why darkroom safelights are red for black and white paper.
Paper is sensitive to blue light. That is why the blues turn white.
Paper is sensitive to green light. If the vegitation was the proper shade of green, you would see it as white in the photographs.
This is why the Ilford Multigrade 500 head has seperate green and blue light in it for contrast control.

Thank you.That was the point, I was wondering why the reds didn't turned out darker. I assume the paper is orthochromatic, the safelight for being red and so on.
I had limited experience with paper negatives. So I was just guessing.

I hope your head does not hurt much.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Here's Jim Galli's blog post on the swirl effect--

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/Swirlies.html

All well and good for Jim's technique.
But I am not convinced. Have a closer look at the guy with the bmx and the razor sharp — almost bas in effect — delineation from the swirls in the background. Given the primitive nature of a Petzval (and despite its capacity to rudimentally correct some of the 5AS), I would like to see some informed technical answers regarding glaring inconsistencies in the images.

 

[Ian David]

I wonder if we'll ever see the original paper negs?

Why on earth would we ever see the original paper negs???

I got the impression that the article (and the project) was simply presenting two different photographic looks - a clean modern digital look, and a rather different look using older pre-digital gear. I didn't realise that the photographer was taking part in some sort of competition governed by a strict set of rules. Or promising to produce fully analog images that are as clean and technically perfect as possible. Or conducting a scientific comparison of film v digital...

So why all the moaning and nit-picking? He probably has used a fully-analog process with some deliberate processing blemishes for a certain sort of look. Then again, maybe he has thrown in a hybrid touch there somewhere. Who cares? I cannot spot the hanging offence here.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

All well and good for Jim's technique.
But I am not convinced. Have a closer look at the guy with the bmx and the razor sharp — almost bas in effect — delineation from the swirls in the background. Given the primitive nature of a Petzval (and despite its capacity to rudimentally correct some of the 5AS), I would like to see some informed technical answers regarding glaring inconsistencies in the images.

WHAT "glaring inconsistencies in the images?" Go over to the Large Format Photography Forum, and take a look at the image sharing section. This is how Petzval and similar lenses behave. When the lens doesn't cover the designed image circle, stuff in the background goes swirley. It's a matter of distance! That's why they were used in studios, where the background was a blank wall. No swirls show up on a blank wall, so everything looks just fine.

This is why you'll never see a real Petzval photo filter. The effect has to do with distance from lens to the image. I posted about "Petzval field effect." Go and read! Better yet, get a Petzval-design lens for yourself, and have some fun!

I wonder if we'll ever see the original paper negs?

Click on the link I posted, and look at the article. There is a photograph of the images in the sink. So there you go.

 

[removed account4]

Thank you.That was the point, I was wondering why the reds didn't turned out darker. I assume the paper is orthochromatic, the safelight for being red and so on.
I had limited experience with paper negatives. So I was just guessing.

I hope your head does not hurt much.

hi again

different papers have different sensitivities ...
there are some variable contrast papers that have a lot of blue
some are sensitive to a lot of green ..
some are blind to different color safelights ... dark red light red &c.
if the photographer used a yellow or red filter, it would have been the same
as using darkroom filters and adjusted the contrast not the tonal range of the image ...

its fun to make paper negatives, you can do it in any camera, 35mm, 6x6 and bigger,

i like hand coating paper with liquid or home-brew emulsions. primitive emulsions
have a different look than "modern" name brand papers, and when hand coating
papers ( and glass if you want ) you get painterly effects if you want too ...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Instead of going for a really crappy gimmicky look, he could have used a 100 year old Tessar and flabbergasted everyone with the sheer quality of the images. But no, he made a mess intead. The guy's a tool.

The problem I have with the project is that it seems to give the message that his very poor results are all that analog processes are capable of. Very patronising.

 

[blansky]

Instead of going for a really crappy gimmicky look, he could have used a 100 year old Tessar and flabbergasted everyone with the sheer quality of the images. But no, he made a mess intead. The guy's a tool.

The problem I have with the project is that it seems to give the message that his very poor results are all that analog processes are capable of. Very patronising.

Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago or was just trying to do something "arty".

Don't forget not all photographers have a background in "the old ways" and not all photographers consider themselves to be the spokesperson for analog photography.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago or was just trying to do something "arty".

Don't forget not all photographers have a background in "the old ways" and not all photographers consider themselves to be the spokesperson for analog photography.

He should stick with what he can do well, and leave the schtick alone. If he can't use analog processes well enough to give a fair representation, he shouldn't use analog processes.

 

[removed account4]

maybe he was just having fun ?

do you rail on people who do wet plate or daguerreotypes,
or people that make glass plates or hand coat their own paper
because they don't have a perfect / pristine results?

it seems if you did, there would be very few people you would
suggest give a fair representation of the analog process.

maybe the person making the plates, dags, home brew/hand coated
photographs doesn't really care much about perfection ...
and it is more about IMperfection/wabi-sabi...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago or was just trying to do something "arty".

Don't forget not all photographers have a background in "the old ways" and not all photographers consider themselves to be the spokesperson for analog photography.

Most commercial and editorial shooters are just hired guns and do what art directors want. They didn't hire an art photographer with his or her own unique voice. It isn't fakery, but he was just imitating photographers that use old processes like Sally Mann. There is an air of insincerity just using this method if it isn't really his style. Maybe he's trying to find his voice or he might have been told what do do?

 

[lxdude]

do you rail on people who do wet plate or daguerreotypes,
or people that make glass plates or hand coat their own paper
because they don't have a perfect / pristine results?

Not at all. The imperfections are part of the process, and indeed, unavoidable. As part of the process, they are also part of its charm.

The images the guy produced though, seem to have deliberately induced imperfections. If they were not deliberate, then the guy has a way to go to be proficient. We've all seen, and many have produced, very nice paper negatives. In those, what appear to be defects are really characteristics; they cannot be eliminated, nor would anyone want to, as they are intrinsic.

maybe the person making the plates, dags, home brew/hand coated
photographs doesn't really care much about perfection ...
and it is more about IMperfection/wabi-sabi...

Perfection, or something close to it, can be achieved through modern processes, so I doubt that it is foremost to those engaging in those processes.

 

[BrianShaw]

I've seen images from 100, and even 150, years ago that were much better. Old does not mean bad. These may have been fun... but I think they are bad -- ill conceived and not attractive.

 

[Matthew Rusbarsky]

Those vertical lines are artifacts introduced by a cheap scanner that is on it's last legs and/or has a very dirty platen. Amazing that the photographer manage to botch both analogue and digital phase of a hybrid process and then have the images accepted by a major publication.

 

[SkipA]

Not at all. The imperfections are part of the process, and indeed, unavoidable. As part of the process, they are also part of its charm.

The images the guy produced though, seem to have deliberately induced imperfections. If they were not deliberate, then the guy has way to go to be proficient. We've all seen, and many have produced, very nice paper negatives. In those, what appear to be defects are really characteristics; they cannot be eliminated, nor would anyone want to, as they are intrinsic.

Perfection, or something close to it, can be achieved through modern processes, so I doubt that it is foremost to those engaging in those processes.

What is technical perfection? Not every photographer is attempting to achieve "technical" perfection. Most photographers and other visual artists want to evoke some sort of emotional response in the viewer, unless they are merely documenting something. Technical perfection may not be the right thing to achieve the intended response. Beauty is not always technically perfect. Technical perfection doesn't always evoke the intended response.

If technical perfection were the goal, why qualify it depending on the medium? Many media would be ruled out because perfection cannot be achieved with them. For technical perfection, you'd select only the technically best cameras, lenses, media, and printing techniques. But even then, others may not agree with your choices, or they may judge that your results weren't technically the best.

Artificially induced imperfections are every bit as much a valid tool of an artist as is media selection, gear selection, dodging and burning, etc.

 

[lxdude]

What is technical perfection? Not every photographer is attempting to achieve "technical" perfection. Most photographers and other visual artists want to evoke some sort of emotional response in the viewer, unless they are merely documenting something. Technical perfection may not be the right thing to achieve the intended response. Beauty is not always technically perfect.

If technical perfection were the goal, why qualify it depending on the medium? Many media would be ruled out because perfection cannot be achieved with them. For technical perfection, you'd select only the technically best cameras, lenses, media, and printing techniques. But even then, others may not agree with your choices, or they may judge that your results weren't technically the best.

I agree completely.

Artificially induced imperfections are every bit as much a valid tool of an artist as is media selection, gear selection, dodging and burning, etc.

Sure, but it doesn't mean I have to like them. I don't like these at all. I don't have anything against artificially induced imperfections per se, but I think they have to be wielded deftly to avoid being a gimmick. Dissonance can make for awesome Jazz, and it can easily make for bad music, and it can also be just noise.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

What type of photograph stands out in our moment of time? A nice photograph in B&W? That would stand out when the display medium is a 72dpi monitor? A nice photograph from a big camera looks the same as a nice photograph from a small camera. For the photograph to be different, it has to look different. The newspapers don't carry, and have never carried, good prints in them, not even machine prints. That is what it would take for a nice chemical print to stand out from a digital image. A print, on paper. And what would it take for that to happen? For a print circulation of 250,000 per day? Can you imagine the machinery it would take to do that today?

That is what it would take for people to get some sense of what large format can deliver. So the vast majority of the populace will never see a large format print. Ever. The only way that a large format print will stand out in the digital age is for people to see soemthing that can't be done with an Instagram filter. That's it. So be glad that someone decided to use a view camera, loaded up a bunch of holders, and went and made some images that would stand out on a computer monitor at 640x480, 72dpi.