Trickery and fake

[Ian Grant]

This - [h=2]Olympic Athletes Photographed Using a Field Camera and 100-Year-Old Lens[/h] has to be some of the worst photography I've seen, totally fake and inaccurate.

The lens is way over 100 yeras old and images have deliberately faked artefacts to make them look old it's an insult to those using film.

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

That's embarassing. He obviously spends too much time chatting on internet forums and not enough time using Petzvals or any other kind of older gear.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Typical gimmickry. "I'm using a big camera and an old lens. Didn't that old gear suck? Aren't I great for using it"?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't think it's necessarily fakery going on. The photographer didn't dress them up in period costumes. I think many people are hungering for something more organic and real than slick digital images. For me it's like somebody wanting to eat a real home made pie made from scratch after eating factory made pies for a long time. Wouldn't you agree? I hope this will start people wanting to shoot analog again.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't think it's necessarily fakery going on. The photographer didn't dress them up in period costumes. I think many people are hungering for something more organic and real than slick digital images. For me it's like somebody wanting to eat a real home made pie made from scratch after eating factory made pies for a long time. Wouldn't you agree? I hope this will start people wanting to shoot analog again.

It's the [rocessing artefacts that are fake and deliberate, not the images and the use of older lenses.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

I don't understand his point and how can you compare colour to black & white?

 

[railwayman3]

I don't understand his point and how can you compare colour to black & white?

Agreed, not sure what the guy was trying to prove. The quality of good photos from 100+ years ago was amazing, and even 100-year-old movie footage is still fine if properly restored and seen as it was originally rather then n-th generation copies.
Would be more interesting to see genuine and good period photos of athletes taken at the time.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Ian , do you watch BBC , there is snog avoid or marry program , they collect from the streets fake girls - most horrible human beings I have ever seen - and transform them to Grace Kelly. In two sides , they are fake. It might not new to you that someone want to earn money and doing every move to success or impress.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

The "processing artifacts" are because he used paper negatives, and he just did it for grins and giggles. I thought that it was a rather nice set of portraits, much nicer than the modern stuff I've seen.

 

[btaylor]

Yes! I was mystified as well when I saw the insert in the LA Times with some of his photographs. I am frequently amazed at the high quality of photography and cinematography a hundred years ago (both technical and aesthetic) when I see restored or undamaged work the way it looked when it was current. I just wish they had been more honest about the fact that the messy artifacts were an aesthetic choice, not simply the result of using 100 year old equipment.

Agreed, not sure what the guy was trying to prove. The quality of good photos from 100+ years ago was amazing, and even 100-year-old movie footage is still fine if properly restored and seen as it was originally rather then n-th generation copies.

 

[cliveh]

Perhaps he should show some images by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe and then try and emulate them with digital cameras.

 

[SkipA]

As was previously mentioned, he used paper, not film.

Each black-and-white portrait was exposed onto black-and-white photographic paper, processed in a darkroom and scanned into a computer.

I liked them.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I like them too. I think those fake Photoshop filters that make digital images look analog shows that imitating sincerest form flattery

You don't see analog photographers putting filters in front of their cameras to fake pixels

 

[Bill Burk]

Makes me glad that 30mm Petzvals are not common...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I like them too. I think those fake Photoshop filters that make digital images look analog shows that imitating sincerest form flattery

You don't see analog photographers putting filters in front of their cameras to fake pixels

That's a really, really good point...



Ken

 

[Ian Grant]

That's a really, really good point...



Ken

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

Ian

 

[artonpaper]

However they were done, they're terrible in my not so humble opinion.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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

Ian

Not the flattery part. The converse logic part. Not needing to try to look like the other technology in the other direction.

Lots of rebate plug-ins, grain plug-ins, and faded-colors-to-look-like-1950 plug-ins for digital images. But not too many camera or enlarger filters to add that pixellated look to film photographs.

Wonder why that is??



Besides, failed attempts at flattery are still flattery, aren't they? It's just the implementation that sucked. Intentional or otherwise.

Ken

 

[lxdude]

I find them annoying. They're affected. They don't look like old pictures, so what's the point? The contrast is way funky, and the artifacts just make them look messy. Just perusing some of the old shots available on Shorpy shows what could be achieved long ago.

If these had been taken a hundred years ago, hell 150 years ago, the guy would have been advised to find another line of work.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think analog imaging to older folks like me, will part of our vernacular. These effects might bring us back to a more genuine and simpler time when you really can believe a photo. It's not just fake photo effects like grain and streaks. It's also with video and audio too. They have scratched film effects for video, pop and clicks for people that record digital music. That's my take on it.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't understand the hostility. I think this was a good idea. I think the pictures have charm.

A young photographer shoots paper negatives to achieve a look... Seems real to me.

The artifacts from splashing developer and mottled processing appear real. The rebates appear real.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As photographers, we should be looking to produce the perfect flaw. Especially in a digital age!

 

[ColdEye]

.. The contrast is way funky, and the artifacts just make them look messy.

The contrast is "funky" because they are paper negatives. Plus he might be bad at processing, I know I was when I tried LF.

 

[Michael W]

I don't understand the hostility. I think this was a good idea. I think the pictures have charm.

A young photographer shoots paper negatives to achieve a look... Seems real to me.

The artifacts from splashing developer and mottled processing appear real. The rebates appear real.

I like them. They have the ortho look of paper negs, and I think the posing is better on those ones than the digital shots.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Interestingly, a USA Today shooter did this schtick almost a decade ago, for the Athens Olympics.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1284

And I seem to recall someone Frankensteining an old tiny Petzval lens onto a Canon 5D DSLR, but I won't go into that here....