Trickery and fake

[lxdude]

Or he was just trying to do something interesting that looked like it was from the Olympics a 100 years ago

If so, he did a crappy job.

or was just trying to do something "arty".

Which is a particularly revolting thought.

 

[CGW]

That's all I care to think of and post, it's pretty far down my list of things to worry about. Yes, Hirst, thanks.

You might enjoy the late Robert Hughes critical work, especially his "Shock of the New." A man who never soft-peddled his likes or dislikes.

 

[removed account4]

I find the images striking, too. Strikingly bad. They would have been much better if he hadn't screwed with them. IMO.

I think they do harm the analog cause by being misleading as to what good analog work with old equipment looks like.
They probably help the analog cause, too, by showing people that analog is still around and capable of producing images very different from the usual; doubtless many will find the images cool, even though I think they suck.

huh ?

that is like saying by someone showing photoshopped digital images, or cell phone photographs
it stains the reputation of digital photography. ... or if someone eats food from a roach coach, they
will never eat good food again ...

he just showed that it is easy to make paper negatives, and use a 4x5 camera
and process the negatives in a bathroom sink ... and if you want to mess around with the results
it is as easy as sitting in front of a computer and clicking on a digital image.

i didn't see anywhere in the article/interview that the purpose of his photographs with the 4x5 camera
was to bring the potential beauty of edwardian photography or analog photography
to the forefront and show how even with 100+ year old lenses and cheap and easy paper negatives
one can get FUN portraits that rival slick modern digital ones.
it isn't like people reading the article were born yesterday, and have no idea what chemical based photography is.

are his digital images fake, and damaging to photography as a whole too? he boosted the contrast and saturation
and probably retouched his views.

where did he mentioned or suggest in the article that his photographs were to be hung in a gallery filled with modern or pop art ..
or that they were supposed to be considered " fine art "
the main thing he mentioned that he had a lot of FUN ... making the exposures, and processing the paper negatives
in his bathroom sink ... it reminded him of the fun had as a photo-student.

maybe the fact that he suggested that he enjoyed goofing around with a large format camera and make paper negatives
will turn more people the way of analog, not the opposite.

You might enjoy the late Robert Hughes critical work, especially his "Shock of the New." A man who never soft-peddled his likes or dislikes.

he died yesterday, didn't he ?

 

[hoffy]

Much ado about nothing.

He's not the spokesperson for large format "old ways".

He's a guy who tried out a technique and then was asked/interviewed about it for the LA fucking Times. Not Large Format Weekly.

The public doesn't know shit about this stuff one way or the other, nor do they care.

The only people that care are other photographers who probably know what he did anyways.

Jesus people, who gives a shit if he pissed on the prints to age them.

Have to agree with Blansky \\ (scary, very scary) 7 pages of sour grapes because this guy got some bit of notice?? Goodness.

This forum needs a "like" & "thanks" function...

 

[Klainmeister]

I just read through 13 pages. Could someone please explain what we're angry about again?

 

[removed account4]

I just read through 13 pages. Could someone please explain what we're angry about again?

klainmeister

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

 

[lxdude]

huh ?

that is like saying by someone showing photoshopped digital images, or cell phone photographs
it stains the reputation of digital photography. ... or if someone eats food from a roach coach, they
will never eat good food again ...

I don't agree with that. It's that people see very few images with the technique emphasized as it was in the article, and I think that plenty won't be all that impressed. But impressed or not, lots of people will get the idea that old equipment and techniques produce results like those pictures.

it isn't like people reading the article were born yesterday, and have no idea what chemical based photography is.

Some young folks have almost no idea. Most of the rest just remember giving their roll of print film to somebody to develop and return prints. They have little knowledge of anything more than that- those big cameras with the bellows were something used long ago, and beyond that... they've never thought about it.

maybe the fact that he suggested that he enjoyed goofing around with a large format camera and make paper negatives
will turn more people the way of analog, not the opposite.

Could be. That's why I said the images could help the analog cause, too.

 

[lxdude]

Have to agree with Blansky \\ (scary, very scary) 7 pages of sour grapes because this guy got some bit of notice?? Goodness.

I really don't think that's it. The pictures suck on their own merit.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

klainmeister

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

Please sentence-capitalise your posts.

 

[zsas]

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

 

[technowizard12]

I found it a bit funny that, from what the image on the article suggests, he didn't use a hood. I can barely make out the glass on a view camera indoors without one!

It might be possible that the images weren't photoshopped to add artifacts. Maybe he's just pretty bad at developing.

 

[hoffy]

I really don't think that's it. The pictures suck on their own merit.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I strongly disagree.

 

[lxdude]

To clarify:

I really don't think that's it. I think the pictures suck on their own merit.

 

[SkipA]

It's a matter of taste, I suppose. I liked them. I thought they provided a nice contrast from the considerably more mundane digital images displayed along side them. The poses were better in the paper neg images than in the corresponding digital images too. They don't suck at all, in my opinion.

Why get so hung up on technical perfection, whatever it is you perceive it to be, or get bent out of shape because you think this photographer is doing a disservice to the advancement of large format paper negative photography? Do you disdainful ones really think anyone will be turned off to large format paper negative photography as a result of this one photographer's work?


I see no trickery or fakery. The whole premise of this thread is faulty.

 

[removed account4]

I don't agree with that. It's that people see very few images with the technique emphasized as it was in the article, and I think that plenty won't be all that impressed. But impressed or not, lots of people will get the idea that old equipment and techniques produce results like those pictures.


Some young folks have almost no idea. Most of the rest just remember giving their roll of print film to somebody to develop and return prints. They have little knowledge of anything more than that- those big cameras with the bellows were something used long ago, and beyond that... they've never thought about it.




Could be. That's why I said the images could help the analog cause, too.

hi xl

maybe you are right ..who knows ... not sure it really matters what we think
most of the world is as you described - dropping off film at a lab, and bellows cameras being - all'that ...

Please sentence-capitalise your posts.

fish of the day,
naaaaaah .... how about using or at least signing your REAL NAME .

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]





fish of the day,
naaaaaah .... how about using or at least signing your REAL NAME .

I did. It's Garyh.

 

[removed account4]

I did. It's Garyh.

Excellent, thanks Garyh!

I can understand you annoyance with all lower case .. but e.e.cummings was a huge
inspiration to me, AND I can't stand it when people don't even sign their real-name
when they use a handle ... so rather than be cranky, I just use all lower-case.

john

 

[lxdude]

hi xl

not sure it really matters what we think

I doesn't really make much difference, does it?


Though it's fun to talk about.

 

[lxdude]

AND I can't stand it when people don't even sign their real-name
when they use a handle

john

Mine's in my profile-does that count?

 

[removed account4]

Naaah, you're all-set Jeff
and I agree wholeheartedly ...

 

[SkipA]

I've never tried paper negs. I am going to rectify that. Time to start reading up on it.

 

[munz6869]

Yes - if anything, all this hoo-hah (I don't really like the pics (I too, enjoy being OCD about photo process), but at least he's doing something to generate discussion about film) has inspired me (as well) to try paper negs also (or even paper positives, with the box of Ilford paper that came with the Harman Titan)... and that's not a bad thing.

Marc!

 

[Michael W]

And that guy who does all that horrible dreadful stuff with the eagles - garbage.

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

 

[MattKing]

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

It better not be Joe Walsh!!!!

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Wow! Has this thread ever received a lot of attention! Somebody might think that we actually care about real film...

It's all the marketing bullstuff which is fake.

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.

Thinking about composition has nothing to do with 100-years old cameras. A Canon 5d Mark whatever does not prevent you to compose carefully. A badly developed analogue photograph can hardly be judged, from the outside, as a creatively rejuvenating experience.

On the other hand, the obvious can always be stated. If the experience was creatively rejuvenating for the author, who are we to doubt about it? ...

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.)

As for creativity, it must certaintly be a jolt out of the old rut to use a large format camera. 23 film holders per shoot, and then back home to develop the paper in his bathroom sink. Some of them came out well, and some of the didn't. The BMX bike was good, and the rowing team was a bit weird. The basketball player was underexposed.

But overall, I liked them. They were lit naturally, and I just happen to like natural light. The digital camera needed an assist to balance the light for its sensor, and that really detracts from the image. Oh, it so seriously detracts from it.

As for Clendenin's statement about the camera and lens: "using a 4-by-5-inch field camera and a 100-plus-year-old Petzval lens." (emphasis added) So would everybody give it a rest with the lens age?

Sheesh. I hope more commercial photographers take an interest in film. There's a couple with the Seattle Times who use LF and sometimes Holga for their assignments. Of course, they have to include the full film borders to make it clear that they did use film, and it wasn't digital or 35mm.