Trickery and fake

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Well, my problem with the images is that they stand out by being bad. And, for many, this might be the only time they get to see an analog print, from any size format. A poor, gimmicky picture(s), that do not represent what the technology used is capable of, or intended for.

 

[Diapositivo]

What I dislike, although it is never stated anywhere, it is the double implication that traditional technologies produce flawed results (that's one) and those results are interesting because they look and smell film while digital imaging is so perfect so boring (that's the second).

Basically it's the lomography aesthetics (the shittier the better) on a grander scale.

That said, it's very nice that people still use or become curious about traditional photography. Sooner or later the same people will appreciate traditional photography for the quality it can deliver, not for the defects which is delivered by faulty cameras or faulty processing (and which is never interesting in my opinion).

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, my problem with the images is that they stand out by being bad. And, for many, this might be the only time they get to see an analog print, from any size format. A poor, gimmicky picture(s), that do not represent what the technology used is capable of, or intended for.

I think the point I was making in starting this thread was the photographer set out to deliberately make bad analog images/prints.l If he didn't then he's showing an unbelievable level of incompetance.

Apart from the deliberate technical artefacts the photographer has also taken less than positive images compared to his digital shots.

The problem is that he claims a 100 year old lens etc, but by 1912 photography was remarkably modern even by todays standards. the Compur shutter, some excellent lenses, Panchromatic films, cameras and lenses fast enough to shoot moving atheletes.

There's no format snobbery in my comments, I can understand what the photographers trying to say but it's based on un-truths, and is so false it's laughably bad.

Ian

 

[E. von Hoegh]

We're on the same page, Ian. What I don't understand are the ones defending the fauxtographer.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

The real format is not 4x5 inches, but 640x480 pixels. That's the real limit. That's today's sad reality. Then what would you do to make that tiny 640x480 stand apart from a cell phone? I haven't heard any answer to that one, and I'd like to know.

What would it cost, just in paper, to print 250,000 11x14 prints? Try $278,806.50 (Ilford glossy multigrade express RC, 11"x250' roll, $238.50; 214 prints per roll; 1,169 rolls). If there was an automatic machine that could produce a print every 30 seconds, it would take nearly three months to print the run. Isn't distribution by web just grand? Upload once, viewed by millions in seconds.

So if any of you would like to at least produce an athletic portrait on LF that is 100% distinct from digital at 640px x 480px, please strut your stuff.

 

[removed account4]

if he made crappy holga photographs, or portraits with a speed graphic and aero ektar
or a wet plate photo, full of streaks /uneven coating would you still have the same negative views?
or is the problem the photos were for a newspaper article contrasting
clinical over saturated, over contrasty digital v, analog ...
grunge band rather than olympic athletes ?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

if he made crappy holga photographs, or portraits with a speed graphic and aero ektar
or a wet plate photo, full of streaks /uneven coating would you still have the same negative views?

Yes, of course. He could have used a Linhof, the results (or lack thereof) are what matter.

And I don't care about the subject matter, grunge band, athlete, tree, what have you.

 

[CGW]

Yes, of course. He could have used a Linhof, the results (or lack thereof) are what matter.

And I don't care about the subject matter, grunge band, athlete, tree, what have you.

I see mostly sour grapes, pretentiousness, and failure to get the point of Clendenin's images in most the objections. Don't get the outsized hostility/outrage toward these shots at all.

 

[blansky]

There is an air of insincerity just using this method if it isn't really his style.

Seriously?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Take a look and I'll let you be the judge

Seriously?

Dead Link Removed

It's just my opinion. The photographer is damned good though.

 

[blansky]

Dead Link Removed

It's just my opinion. The photographer is damned good though.

Yes but the point is you called it trickery when he does something that is outside his formula/style.

Why isn't it experimentation? Why isn't it fun and different? Why isn't it stepping outside his comfort zone?

Why do you feel cheated?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I didn't call it trickery. I love it when I and other photographers step outside their comfort zone. Without experimentation, nothing progresses. I don't know if it's fun but different? No.

My point is that he's a hired gun and the photographer will use a style that not his own to complete an assignment. No I don't feel cheated. Some art directors will go to a photographer and say "Hey can you do this?" even though it's not their style. As a matter of fact, I do like the fact that he's shooting analog with an old camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I see mostly sour grapes, pretentiousness, and failure to get the point of Clendenin's images in most the objections. Don't get the outsized hostility/outrage toward these shots at all.

*shrugs*

 

[blansky]

Some of the responses here are akin to a group of people waiting and praying for the analog messiah to come and bring the world back to what they think it should be.

The guy never said he was your messiah. He was just experimenting with an old lens.

This is just like the Life of Brian.

As his mom would say " He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9EHtQMMc4

 

[Steve Smith]

Whilst I agree with Ian's statement:

I think the point I was making in starting this thread was the photographer set out to deliberately make bad analog images/prints.l If he didn't then he's showing an unbelievable level of incompetence.

He is free to do whatever he wants whether we like it or not.


Steve.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Whilst I agree with Ian's statement:



He is free to do whatever he wants whether we like it or not.


Steve.

Absolutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.

 

[Steve Smith]

Absoutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.

As you say, absolutely!


Steve.

 

[Ian Grant]

Absolutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.

Which we are doing in this thread

Ian

 

[CGW]

Absolutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.

Trick is, he gets paid well for his "$hitty" pix, whatever you think of 'em. Art without commerce is a hobby.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Trick is, he gets paid well for his "$hitty" pix, whatever you think of 'em. Art without commerce is a hobby.

What's your point, if you have one?

 

[ColdEye]

I'd rather look at shitty pictures of olympians rather than technically perfect pictures of some random tree in a backyard.

 

[removed account4]

Trick is, he gets paid well for his "$hitty" pix, whatever you think of 'em. Art without commerce is a hobby.

exactly ..
he had fun, and got paid for it ...

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd rather look at shitty pictures of olympians rather than technically perfect pictures of some random tree in a backyard.

Well Simon Roberts is shooting the Olympics LF film & colour (there's a lot more somewhere else), I'd guess Burnett is there as well, and there are others shooting film, non delibereately faking the results.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

Well Simon Roberts is shooting the Olympics LF film & colour, I'd guess Burnett is there as well, and there are others shooting film, non delibereately faking the results.

Ian

hi ian

he shot paper negatives and processed them the way he wanted ...
he didn't add textures or lens blurr with photoshop,
he didn't suggest that his 100+ year old lens was going to make
perfect images ... or even suggest that 100+ years ago photography looked as his portraits looked ...

he seemed to enjoy himself ...

what was it that he faked ?

 

[ColdEye]

Well Simon Roberts is shooting the Olympics LF film & colour (there's a lot more somewhere else), I'd guess Burnett is there as well, and there are others shooting film, non delibereately faking the results.

Ian

But which part of it is he faking? If the bad development is intentional or not, that's his vision. What's fake about that? I don't see Burnett getting flamed for his amazing pictures with his Holga, with it's light leaks and vignettes.