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.
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.
There is an air of insincerity just using this method if it isn't really his style.
Seriously?
Dead Link Removed
It's just my opinion. The photographer is damned good though.
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.
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.
Whilst I agree with Ian's statement:
He is free to do whatever he wants whether we like it or not.
Steve.
Absoutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.
Absolutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.
Absolutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.
Trick is, he gets paid well for his "$hitty" pix, whatever you think of 'em. Art without commerce is a hobby.
Trick is, he gets paid well for his "$hitty" pix, whatever you think of 'em. Art without commerce is a hobby.
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, I'd guess Burnett is there as well, and there are others shooting film, non delibereately faking the results.
Ian
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
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?