Trickery and fake

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I see a guy trying something different, and lots of people making comments based on their own view of what the pictures are. The discussion pinpoints individual beliefs of what photography should be, none of which is of importance to the photographer. We can all discuss it ad nauseum, while the fact remains that he's the one with the pictures in the newspaper, and we're the ones arguing about it in a relatively narrow scope web forum.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

...while the fact remains that he's the one with the pictures in the newspaper,...

Much better him than me. The only thing I'd have shown those pictures to is the inside of the woodstove.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Much better him than me. The only thing I'd have shown those pictures to is the inside of the woodstove.

Go on.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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?

Crap is bad enough, artificial crap is just off the scale.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Go on.

I've said it all in my previous posts, scroll up a bit and you'll find a collection of what I think of the pics. His pictures are affectedly bad.

 

[SkipA]

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

I have never encountered this misconception you speak of. I don't think such a thing exists.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have never encountered this misconception you speak of. I don't think such a thing exists.

Unfortunately it does exist, I've run into it a couple times when out with my MF and LF gear.

 

[removed account4]

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

hi ian

thanks for your reply -
i couldn't agree with you more ..
there really isn't a comparison between the 2 media.

john

 

[blansky]

I think maybe this thread is one of those "get off my lawn" moments.


Me, well I converted to artificial turf a while ago.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think maybe this thread is one of those "get off my lawn" moments.


Me, well I converted to artificial turf a while ago.

Astroturf?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've said it all in my previous posts, scroll up a bit and you'll find a collection of what I think of the pics. His pictures are affectedly bad.

Precisely my point.

 

[removed account4]

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?

emil,
if you said something that wasn't derogatory or insulting maybe i would listen.

 

[eddie]

It's one thing to dislike what he's done, it's another to claim it isn't legitimate. There's not a single person, here, who can (or should) claim to be the arbiter of what photography is (or isn't).

 

[lxdude]

There's not a single person, here, who can (or should) claim to be the arbiter of what photography is (or isn't).

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Charcoal drawing is not photography.


So there

 

[eddie]

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Charcoal drawing is not photography.


So there

I've added charcoal to some of my photos, so Right! Right! Right!

 

[blansky]

Astroturf?

Yeah you old analog guys, "get the hell off my Astroturf."

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yeah you analog guys, "get the hell off my Astroturf."

 

[Ian Grant]

I have never encountered this misconception you speak of. I don't think such a thing exists.

I didn't think they existed until last Xmas, but I was told that film was outdated and not capable of the qualities of digital, strangely I use the same model Digital SLR as the person who made the statement.

Ian

 

[zsas]

Ian - So is it our responsibility as analog photographers to never photograph in a manner that could give the perception that analog tools can be misconstrued to give the impression that their attributes are less than superior to other methods of photography? I don't remember seeing such a decree when I bought my analog camera? Is it some kind of fine print in eBay or Craigslist or in th Apug classifieds???

 

[removed account4]

hi andy

i think the problem is the general public is clueless, and like sheep.
they believe everything they see, and hear and unless they hear or see otherwise
they think it is the only truth there is. ignorance is always bliss

so if someone is told that analog photographs, are crap compared to digital
that paper negatives look like hell, and old folders or box cameras or old looking bellows + brass lens cameras
only take crappy photos that look "old" they will believe it unless they see or are told otherwise.

and the other side of the coin is that if people who are used to goofing around with digital images
see that it is just as easy and maybe even more fun to do something creative with chemical based photography,
maybe there will be more people goofing off in both media ... or doing hybrid work because with chemical photography
you can get different effects that are unobtainable with numbers ..,

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Ian - So is it our responsibility as analog photographers to never photograph in a manner that could give the perception that analog tools can be misconstrued to give the impression that their attributes are less than superior to other methods of photography? I don't remember seeing such a decree when I bought my analog camera? Is it some kind of fine print in eBay or Craigslist or in th Apug classifieds???

I'm not Ian, but I'll answer.

It's our responsibility as (hopefully) acceptable human beings not to misrepresent either ourselves or what we do. If you really want to get to the grit of the matter, this is what I think the photographer did - sold a gimmick, said gimmick the result of misrepresenting analog photography and his skills. I find that reprehensible, to put it mildly.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian - So is it our responsibility as analog photographers to never photograph in a manner that could give the perception that analog tools can be misconstrued to give the impression that their attributes are less than superior to other methods of photography? I don't remember seeing such a decree when I bought my analog camera? Is it some kind of fine print in eBay or Craigslist or in th Apug classifieds???

No not at all and I'd never suggest that. However it depends how you use work and in this case it's a comparison of analog versus digital and the photograpger has deliberately made the analog results worse than they should be.

If any of us did the reverse we'd have to whole Digital brigade down on us like a tone of bricks.

So in this case it's the context in the LA Times not the images themselves.

Ian

 

[zsas]

I'm not Ian, but I'll answer.

It's our responsibility as (hopefully) acceptable human beings not to misrepresent either ourselves or what we do. If you really want to get to the grit of the matter, this is what I think the photographer did - sold a gimmick, said gimmick the result of misrepresenting analog photography and his skills. I find that reprehensible, to put it mildly.

Please urgently talk to Sean and demand all Minox users be removed from APUG at once. The thought of these folks out there taking images that are sub par when they can go to a thrift store and get a full frame p&s with better IQ......these folks are ruining our image

 

[zsas]

If any of us did the reverse we'd have to whole Digital brigade down on us like a tone of bricks

Nahh....that would be out of scope for this forum as is this thinly veiled discussion of other methods is...

 

[zsas]

...and the other side of the coin is that if people who are used to goofing around with digital images
see that it is just as easy and maybe even more fun to do something creative with chemical based photography,
maybe there will be more people goofing off in both media ... or doing hybrid work because with chemical photography
you can get different effects that are unobtainable with numbers ..,

That is the truth, or Facebook wouldnt have paid a billion or so dollars for Instagram....also Lomo is doing great too...

I like your positive spin on it...