And the artful swirls...? How are they explained?
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.
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.
And the artful swirls...? How are they explained?
(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.
Here's Jim Galli's blog post on the swirl effect--
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/Swirlies.html
I wonder if we'll ever see the original paper negs?
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.
I wonder if we'll ever see the original paper negs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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?