Trickery and fake

Ian David · Aug 8, 2012

Brian C. Miller said:
But overall, I liked them.

On the whole, I didn't particularly like the look he created here. But I know quite a few people would, which is fine by me. The sad thing about this thread is the number of aggressive assertions that there has been some kind of fraud or betrayal of the analog cause... I just don't see it.

Still, there is an upside. Threads like this enable me to update my mental list of who the resident self-righteous windbags are, which in turn makes it easier to skip over some of the BS in other threads

Diapositivo · Aug 8, 2012

Brian C. Miller said:
Ya know, there's one thing about the statement that stood out rather glaringly for me: "With no motor drive to capture three frames every second (as with my Canon 5d Mark II cameras)..." Did it escape everyone's attention that Mr. Clendenin thinks that his digital camera has a motor drive in it?? If he actually had a film camera with a motor drive, he could be exposing 10 frames per second! (Canon EOS-1V, costing less and doing more than full-frame digital cameras, and not obsolete every other year.)

His digital camera has a motor drive, or more, to cock the shutter and to raise the mirror. It has no need of a motor drive to advance film (because the camera sadly lacks film) but it needs the motor for all the other functions.
In mechanical film cameras the lever winds the film and cocks the shutter/mirror mechanism.
(And his camera probably has another motor somewhere for focusing, but that's not the point).

Going back to the OP, the guy is likely a LF camera user and it is very likely that this is not the first time he takes it in his hands and that he can produce technically correct results.

I go on thinking he's in a "lomography kind" aesthetic operation: "look at those pictures, they are so refreshingly faulty as opposed to the digital boring perfection". That is where I see the "problem", the idea that film is authentic because it is supposed to be faulty and thus have character, and the idea that digital is boring because it is supposed to be perfect.

The problem is IMO also not whether the images have some aesthetic merit of any kind, that is a conversation that could be as endless as useless. The problem is that the technical faults, such as the gross technical fault of the unevenly developed image, are used as a "statement" so to speak, and that "statement" (or implication in the article) is not flattering for analogue photography because it reduces it to the above mentioned Lomography aesthetic.

Maybe the newspaper wouldn't have considered the pictures interesting if the journalist had been proposed correctly developed pictures. You cannot see the "difference" on the monitor can you? So what's the point?

The reasoning being: there is no iPhone app which simulates screwing the development phase so this must appear and appeal as real authentic photography.

SkipA · Aug 8, 2012

Diapositivo said:
I go on thinking he's in a "lomography kind" aesthetic operation: "look at those pictures, they are so refreshingly faulty as opposed to the digital boring perfection". That is where I see the "problem", the idea that film is authentic because it is supposed to be faulty and thus have character, and the idea that digital is boring because it is supposed to be perfect.

As has been noted repeatedly, he didn't use film, so he clearly wasn't trying to promote the idea that film is authentic because it is faulty. Neither did he make the claim that prints made from paper negatives were the norm 100 years ago.

Your perception that lomography embraces the concept that film is authentic because it is faulty is off base. That is not what the lomographic aesthetic is all about. It is about surprise, serendipity, natural and unplanned effects, spontaneous capture, and artifacts that produce a different kind of image, one that can't be achieved by careful planning or can be reliably reproduced, and therefore delights in unanticipated ways.

That's why lomographers choose poorly made cameras with distorted plastic lenses that leak light, and then load it with expired film, and sometimes cross process it for added effect. It is "affected", for sure, but the point is that it's unpredictable. Lomography has nothing to do with a belief that film is authentic because it has faults that "perfect" digital imaging does not. I'm quite sure that most lomographers know full well that a fresh roll of professional film in a high quality film camera and lens is capable of just as good a result as the latest pro DSLR.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

Mainecoonmaniac said:
http://www.damienhirst.com/

At least his art is challenging.

So is cancer.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

jnanian said:
klainmeister

they are mad because he made "arty" portraits and because the photographer had FUN.

Are your reading skills really that rudimentary? It's been explained very clearly, several times, what the dislike is. Diapositivo said it best, IMO.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

Michael W said:
I hate the Eagles too, but which member are you referring to - Glenn Frey? Don Henley? All of them?

Yes, but I was referring to the paintings and statues that were really popular a few years ago.

Diapositivo · Aug 8, 2012

SkipA said:
As has been noted repeatedly, he didn't use film, so he clearly wasn't trying to promote the idea that film is authentic because it is faulty. Neither did he make the claim that prints made from paper negatives were the norm 100 years ago.

As reported, the article says (emphasis mine)
But shooting the large-format film was a relaxing and, most important, creatively rejuvenating experience. With no motor drive to capture three frames every second (as with my Canon 5d Mark II cameras), I was forced to slow down and think about each frame.

Regarding the "unpredictability" of the Lomography experience, you know what I mean, which is that bad technique is perceived as interesting. The fact that this bad technique is looked for, and is unpredictable because there is some random factor spoiling the final result, does not change my perception of the Lomography aesthetic as being based on the problem rather than on the solution so to speak.

In the end it's all personal tastes. One can bake bread in a defective wood oven randomly leaking hot air and having a final result unpredictably half-baked and half-burned, and if he likes that bread so be it.
The problem arises when this kind of final result is somehow exalted - not in explicit words but as a general attitude or rhetoric - as the real authentic wood-cooked bread as opposed to the impersonal and too-perfect electricity-cooked bread.

Our point is that you can use a wood oven to make a better bread, not just a randomly defective one. The Lomography movement, while helping the sale of analogue material, risks to involuntarily spread an equation of "analogue = randomly defective" which in the long run might damage analogue photography.

Said in other words, it seems to imply that analogue lost the "race for quality", and that people would use digital for quality and analogue for poetic/dreamy/unpredictable/old-fashioned/rejuvenating/whatever results.

The photographer whose work originated this thread, which IMO just applied this Lomography aesthetic to LF, seems to be spreading this message.
The OP criticized the perception of his work as being "authentic" because "defective" and in this sense he used the words trickery and fake.

Unpredictable results can also be achieved by having your cat walk on your keyboard while using Lightroom...

Brian C. Miller · Aug 8, 2012

Okay, what we have here seems to actually be a debate of Pictorialism vs. Modernism.

Should newspapers run Pictorialist images in news articles? I think that it's fine. This isn't the scene of an accident or fire or something like that. A Modernist approach should be used for that. But here we have a situation where, in actually a bit less than 640x480 (I checked), LF stands out without scanning in the borders.

Is Large Format, and thus all of opto-chemical photography, denigraded by this? I honestly am not convinced of it. Pictorialism has been with us since before Henry Peach Robinson's 1869 book, "Pictorial Effect in Photography: Being Hints On Composition And Chiaroscuro For Photographers." I am quite certain that Mr. Robinson would be fine with Holgas, Dianas, portrait lenses, Petzvals used outside their design parameters, and every other crazy thing. The portraits aren't "sharp images of fuzzy ideas." Aside from darkroom technique, I still think Mr. Clendenin did a good job with the portraits.

So what can be said for the current distributed format of 640x480? It has demonstrated that the only time a film image stands apart from digital is when the image is Pictorialist. A Speed Graphic with an Aero Ektar used for that narrow focus plane produces essentially a Pictorialist image, even though it's Modernist equipment. Since the resultimg image is Pictorialist, it stands out from Modernist digital. AFAIC, including film borders is Pictorialist, as the inclusion of the borders is a deliberate effort to affect the viewer's perception of the image.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

Brian C. Miller said:
Okay, what we have here seems to actually be a debate of Pictorialism vs. Modernism.

Should newspapers run Pictorialist images in news articles? I think that it's fine. This isn't the scene of an accident or fire or something like that. A Modernist approach should be used for that. But here we have a situation where, in actually a bit less than 640x480 (I checked), LF stands out without scanning in the borders.

Is Large Format, and thus all of opto-chemical photography, denigraded by this? I honestly am not convinced of it. Pictorialism has been with us since before Henry Peach Robinson's 1869 book, "Pictorial Effect in Photography: Being Hints On Composition And Chiaroscuro For Photographers." I am quite certain that Mr. Robinson would be fine with Holgas, Dianas, portrait lenses, Petzvals used outside their design parameters, and every other crazy thing. The portraits aren't "sharp images of fuzzy ideas." Aside from darkroom technique, I still think Mr. Clendenin did a good job with the portraits.

So what can be said for the current distributed format of 640x480? It has demonstrated that the only time a film image stands apart from digital is when the image is Pictorialist. A Speed Graphic with an Aero Ektar used for that narrow focus plane produces essentially a Pictorialist image, even though it's Modernist equipment. Since the resultimg image is Pictorialist, it stands out from Modernist digital. AFAIC, including film borders is Pictorialist, as the inclusion of the borders is a deliberate effort to affect the viewer's perception of the image.

As I see it, it is not "pictorialism vs. modernism" but carelessness and unrealistic low expectations vs. a proper job.

MattKing · Aug 8, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
As I see it, it is not "pictorialism vs. modernism" but carelessness and unrealistic low expectations vs. a proper job.

Do I hear the ghosts of the f/64 group speaking here? :munch:

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

MattKing said:
Do I hear the ghosts of the f/64 group speaking here? :munch:

Yes, if you like - perhaps Edward Weston who produced stellar images using only the most basic equipment and competent technique...

zsas · Aug 8, 2012

zsas said:
At the prior Olympics in Beijing Clendenin photographed athletes using a Polaroid. The horror!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2008/08/athlete-snapsho.html

Ironic that no one who is so appalled by the photographer's choice to present these images as such for the 2012 Olympics finds his 2008 Polaroids abhorrent. Is it because there is a sacred reverence for LF and any deviation from perfection (a la Ansel) is junk? Or are the Polaroids fine because he didn't degrade the image "unnecessarily"?

What about wet plate folks that have a pour that is less than perfect? Are those to destroyed?

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

zsas said:
Ironic that no one who is so appalled by the photographer's choice to present these images as such for the 2012 Olympics finds his 2008 Polaroids abhorrent. Is it because there is a sacred reverence for LF and any deviation from perfection (a la Ansel) is junk? Or are the Polaroids fine because he didn't degrade the image "unnecessarily"?

What about wet plate folks that have a pour that is less than perfect? Are those to destroyed?

Once again, the issue is the artificial "quaintness" and lousy quality of the 2012 images being presented as what analog is.

I haven't seen his 2008 images and have no intention of looking at them. I have no interest in sports or competitions of any sort.

As for the wetplates, if you are trying to show what wetplate technology is capable of under the best conditions, you don't show the bad pours. If you are trying to show real-world results, you include the bad pours and show how to avoid that particular problem.

Wetplate whimsey:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?77116-Post-your-Pixies!-)

blansky · Aug 8, 2012

zsas said:
Ironic that no one who is so appalled by the photographer's choice to present these images as such for the 2012 Olympics finds his 2008 Polaroids abhorrent. Is it because there is a sacred reverence for LF and any deviation from perfection (a la Ansel) is junk? Or are the Polaroids fine because he didn't degrade the image "unnecessarily"?

No No NO. Are you kidding?

Over at the polaroid forum they're still going berserk over those 2008 pictures.

removed account4 · Aug 8, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
Are your reading skills really that rudimentary? It's been explained very clearly, several times, what the dislike is. Diapositivo said it best, IMO.

no my reading skills aren't rudimentary, i said the gist of what you and ian were suggesting.
that his photographs were terrible, and he didn't present "proper" portraits, but had fun instead.

while you did not say these things specifically, the way i said them it is possible to read between the lines.

i am sure if the photographer wanted to, he could have presented perfectly exposed, perfectly processed
and perfectly scanned portraits of the olympic athletes using his old lens and view camera. while using paper instead
of film presents its own skill set, and challenges ( difficult contrast, non panchromatic emulsion and different processing methods )
i am sure he could have shot in overcast conditions, used filtration, or paper flashing, and spent developer, or a low contrast developer,
and scanned everything to make his black/white portraits look perfect ... but he didn't choose to do that
instead he chose to have fun ... and it is the fun that he had that you seem to have taken offense to.

are you going to start getting upset with people who don't use the zone system next ?

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

jnanian said:
no my reading skills aren't rudimentary, i said the gist of what you and ian were suggesting.
that his photographs were terrible, and he didn't present "proper" portraits, but had fun instead.

while you did not say these things specifically, the way i said them it is possible to read between the lines.

i am sure if the photographer wanted to, he could have presented perfectly exposed, perfectly processed
and perfectly scanned portraits of the olympic athletes using his old lens and view camera. while using paper instead
of film presents its own skill set, and challenges ( difficult contrast, non panchromatic emulsion and different processing methods )
i am sure he could have shot in overcast conditions, used filtration, or paper flashing, and spent developer, or a low contrast developer,
and scanned everything to make his black/white portraits look perfect ... but he didn't choose to do that
instead he chose to have fun ... and it is the fun that he had that you seem to have taken offense to.

are you going to start getting upset with people who don't use the zone system next ?

Instead of "reading between the lines", why don't you just read the lines, and stick with that. I and others said clearly what we think is wrong with the images, and now you are holding me and others responsible for what you think we implied.

The zone system? Are you dredging up another controversial subject to excersise your agenda on? FWIW, I don't use it.

blansky · Aug 8, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
The zone system? Are you dredging up another controversial subject to excersise your agenda on? FWIW, I don't use it.

AHA. You don't use it.

SO !!!

WELL, you don't use it you say !!!

bail me out here....not sure where I'm going with this....but I thought it was maybe a gotcha moment........no sure....

oh, I know....

AHA !!! YOU DON'T USE IT !!!

Not a proper LFer then are you !!!

WELL THEN....

YOU'RE OUT OF THE CLUB THEN !!! AREN'T YOU !!!

YOU'RE AN EX- LFer.

And a disgrace.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

blansky said:
AHA. You don't use it.

SO !!!

WELL, you don't use it you say !!!

bail me out here....not sure where I'm going with this....but I thought it was maybe a gotcha moment........no sure....

Gotcha? Looks like you read up on those trials in Salem.

Klainmeister · Aug 8, 2012

I'd love to see how this conversation would end up in real life. This has become so ridiculous....

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

Klainmeister said:
I'd love to see how this conversation would end up in real life. This has become so ridiculous....

Let's see...

The ones who are being deliberately obtuse would all have been garrotted.

The ones who are putting words in others' mouths would be hanging from the rafters.

The ones who agree that the pictures suck would be gathered in a group around a computer, looking for the next unfortunate victim/photographer.

The neighbors would all be gathered around their computers, looking at real estate listings somewhere... anywhere else.

Actually, I sometimes think internet fora were engineered to foment this sort of thing. Fora are good for administering zingers, but not so good for real discussions.

I like to think we'd all have reached a consensus, or at least agreed to disagree, in a fairly efficient manner and in much less time.

removed account4 · Aug 8, 2012

you are too funny ...

Ian Grant said:
It's not flattery when the technique deliberately maks the images look far worse than they would be if genuine !!!!!

Ian Grant said:
It's the [rocessing artefacts that are fake and deliberate, not the images and the use of older lenses

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

E. von Hoegh said:
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.

E. von Hoegh said:
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.

E. von Hoegh said:
Absolutely. And we are free to express our dislike of his shitty pictures.

E. von Hoegh said:
Once again, the issue is the artificial "quaintness" and lousy quality of the 2012 images being presented as what analog is.

I haven't seen his 2008 images and have no intention of looking at them. I have no interest in sports or competitions of any sort.

As for the wetplates, if you are trying to show what wetplate technology is capable of under the best conditions, you don't show the bad pours. If you are trying to show real-world results, you include the bad pours and show how to avoid that particular problem.

Wetplate whimsey:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?77116-Post-your-Pixies!-)

lousy quality, crappy, gimmicky, shitty photographs ... didn't use the proper technique, deliberately made fake processing artifacts, not genuine, misrepresented and did not show what analog photography is ... bla bla bla

instead he had fun, and deliberately made shitty, crappy, gimmicky, lousy quality, photographs ...

are there different people posing as ian, and the 19th century lensmaker emil von hoegh?

Ian Grant · Aug 8, 2012

jnanian said:
you are too funny ...

lousy quality, crappy, gimmicky, shitty photographs ... didn't use the proper technique, deliberately made fake processing artifacts, not genuine, misrepresented and did not show what analog photography is ... bla bla bla

instead he had fun, and deliberately made shitty, crappy, gimmicky, lousy quality, photographs ...

are there different people posing as ian, and the 19th century lensmaker emil von hoegh?

The circle closes:

I have no issues with his B&W images for what they are, and I'm sure he had fun making them. I've done similar for music videos - OK using digital techniques but I could do the same with analog stills.

My point is that in fact using film or paper negatives it's actually not that common to get all those artefacts/faults very often, so there's a high degree of dliberate intent in the images. So what I'm really questioning why when there's a direct comparison with Digital images, I'd guess it's purely commercial.

And to answer Klainmeister - I would say the same to the photographer face to face, I've done so before & I'll do it again. It's the context the images are used in rather than the images themselves.

Ian

E. von Hoegh · Aug 8, 2012

jnanian said:
you are too funny ...

lousy quality, crappy, gimmicky, shitty photographs ... didn't use the proper technique, deliberately made fake processing artifacts, not genuine, misrepresented and did not show what analog photography is ... bla bla bla

instead he had fun, and deliberately made shitty, crappy, gimmicky, lousy quality, photographs ...

are there different people posing as ian, and the 19th century lensmaker emil von hoegh?

jnanian, trying to talk sense to you is like shouting down an outhouse hole. It just raises a bad smell.

I've made my opinion clear, I'm not likely to change it. How about you leave me alone, and I'll return the courtesy?

tron_ · Aug 8, 2012

I don't know why he even wasted his time using this camera. If he was set on misrepresenting the quality of 4x5 cameras/lenses, he could have just done some shitty photoshop work to get this "vintage" look.

I think this just fuels the misonception that film cameras produce "low quality and 'vintage'" looking photos.

Klainmeister · Aug 8, 2012

I still think I'd prefer genuine shittiness over fake shittiness. I mean, yes, I could use my Droid to make a polaroid, but I'd rather have the real sensation, even if the results were identical. Isn't that what shooting film is all about?

Trickery and fake

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency